i^  a  o^  i:a.  «^::^  i:a.  "^:2^ 

OF  THE 

PRINCETON,   N.  J. 


SAMUEL    AGNEW, 

OF     PHILADELPHIA,     PA. 


Tyueyvolu  Z^ti.^j^^S'^ 


m  (  "        ""  t  (3 

Division.. i. 


V  7       ^.  -f-Q; 


>e£<^^>Qe' 


//•■v 


BIBLE  NEWS: 

OR, 

SACRED  TRUTHS 

RELATING    TO 

THE  LIVING  GOD, 
HIS  ONLY  SON,  AND  HOLY  SP5EIT, 

ILLUSTRATED  AND   DEFENDED,  IN  A    CONTINUED   SERIES   OE 
LETTERS   AND    INaUIRIES. 


**  But  to  us  there  is  but  one  God  the  Father."     St.  Paul. 
"  This  is  my  beloved  Son."     Jehovah. 
"  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 

St.  Peter. 


TO  WHICH  IS  ADDED 


A  RESPKCTFUL  ADDRESS 

TO    THE    TRINITARIAN    CLERGY,    RELATING    TO    THEIR    MAN^- 
WER    OF    TREATING   OPPONENTS. 

BY  NOAH  WORCESTER,  D.  D. 


BOSTON : 

PRINTED    AND    PUBLISHED    BY    THOMAS    B.    WAIT. 

SOLD    ALSO 

BY  RICHARDSON  AND  LORD,   CHMMINGS,  MILLIARD,   AND  CO. 

AND    AT    THE    CHRLSTFAN    REGISTPZR    OFFICE, 

1825. 


DISTRICT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS,  TO  WIT  : 

DISTRICT    clerk's    OmCE. 

BE  it  remembered,  that  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  Jaiiuaiy,  A.  D.  1825,  in 
the  forty-ninth  year  of  the  Independence  of  the  Umtecl  btatts  of  Anitrica} 
]4oah  Worcester,  D.D.  of  the  suid  district,  has  dcpOMted  in  tl  is  office  tlie  tiile 
of  a  book,  the  right  whereo)  he  claims  as  author,  in  the  words  foUowing, 
to  wit : 

»*  Bible  News :  or  Sacred  Truths  relating-  to  tht-  Living  God,  his  Only  Son, 
and  Holy  Siunt,  illustrated  and  defended  m  a  series  of  l.i  ttt-rs  ami  Ii.qiiiries. 
*But  to  us  tht-re  is  but  one  God  the  Fata tr.'  St.  Paul.  '  This  is  my 
beloved  Son  '  Jehovah  '  G-jd  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazaietn  with  the  Holy 
Gliost.'  St.  Peter.  To  whic'i  is  added,  a  respt^cilul  Address  to  the  Tri- 
n  taran  Clers^y,  relatuig  to  their  manner  of  treating  opponents.  By  NOAH 
WORCESTER,   P.  D.    Third  edition.'* 

In  youfjrin  ty  !•»  lii;;  ict  ofiii-  Congress  of  the  United  States,  entitled, '•  \n 
act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  ihp  copies  of  Maps, 
Charts,aud  Books,  to  the  nuthoi-s  nnd  proprietors  of  such  copies,  during  the 
times  therein  mentioned;"  and  also  to  an  act,  entitled,  "  An  act  supplemen- 
tary to  an  act,  entitled,  A'l  act  for  the  encourag-ment  otlearning-,  by  securing 
the  copi 's  of  vlaps.  Charts,  and  Books,  to  the  authors  and  piopi  ietors  of  such 
copies  during  the  times  tlierein  mentioned  ;  and  tx' ending  the  b*  nefits  there- 
of to  the  arts  of  Desigaiug,  Engraving  and  Etching  !I  storical  and  other 
Prints."  JNO.  W.  DAViS, 

Clerk  of  the  District  of  Massachtisetts^ 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


It  lias  long  been  regretted  that  not  a  copy  was  to  be 
obtained  of  the  volume  entitled  *'  BIBLE  NEWS.'* 

Believing  that  this  little  work  has  done  much  good, 
and  is  calculated  to  do  much  more,  by  its  vigour  of  in- 
tellect, its  scriptural  truth,  and  the  spirit  of  conciliation 
in  which  it  is  written — the  publisher  has  been  induced 
to  ask  the  privilege  of  printing  a  third  edition. 

The  following  Letter  from  the  venerable  Author  will 
show  that  his  consent  has  been  given  ;  but  that  it  is  not 
in  his  power  to  make  any  additions  or  alterations.— 
And  shall  we  be  dissatisfied  with  this? — Shall  we  com. 
plain  because  one  of  the  best  books  ever  written  is  not 
made  still  better  ? 

A  LETTER  FROM  THE  AUTHOR  TO  MR.  T.  B.  WAIT. 

Brighton,  August  24,  1824. 
MY    DEAR    SIR, 

Having  consented  that  yon  should  reprint  the  book 
entitled  "  Bible  News,"  it  may  be  proper  for  me  to 
assign  the  reasons  why  I  do  not  revise  the  work. 

Want  of  health  is  the  principal  reason  for  this  neglect. 
Since  you  proposed  reprinting,  in  1822,  such  has  been 
my  situation  that  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  rae 


LV  ADVERTISEMENT. 

to  make  a  revision  satisfactory  to  myself,  without  omitV 
ting  other  things  which  T  regarded  as  of  more  importance. 
It  is  now  twelve  years  since  the  second  edition  was  pub- 
lished, and  nearly  as  long  since  1  have  read  the  book. 
During  that  period  the  spirit  of  inquiry,  and  Biblical 
criticism  have  done  much  to  correct  publick  opinion. 
Many  of  the  criticisms  I  have  occasionally  read  ;  and  by 
their  aid  I  might  furnish  support  to  the  interpretations 
which  I  gave  to  many  disputed  texts.  Perhaps  too  I 
might  in  several  instances,  correct  mistakes  of  my  own ; 
and  I  am  far  from  deeming  it  a  just  ground  of  reproach 
for  a  man  to  confess  and  correct  his  own  mistakes. 

But  want  of  health  is  not  the  only  reason  why  I  do 
not  revise  the  work.  After  I  began  to  write  on  the  sub- 
ject of  War,  in  1814,  I  soon  lost  all  disposition  to  pursue 
the  controversy  which  had  for  several  years  occupied 
much  of  my  attention.  I  found  that  I  had  long  been  in 
errours  in  relation  to  w'ar,  far  more  pernicious  than  I 
was  disposed  to  impute  to  any  class  of  my  brethren  in 
respect  to  the  Trinity.  From  that  time  to  the  present, 
1  have  been  deeply  impressed  with  the  belief,  that  of  all 
the  errours  which  have  ever  afflicted  mankind,  those 
which  sanction  war  as  an  honourable  employment  are 
the  most  fatal  and  the  most  to  be  deplored — not  except- 
ing the  pagan  errours  which  induce  men  to  offer  human 
sacrifices  to  imaginary  gods.  When  1  have  reflected  on 
the  facts,  that  Christians  of  various  denominations  have 
been  disposed  to  contend,  and  to  rejiroach  one  another 
on  account  of  a  diversity  of  opinions  on  subjects  oi  little 
practical  importance,  while  they  have  united  in  giving 
glory  to  the  practice  of  national  robberj  and  murder,  I 


ADVERTISEMENT.  V 

have  been  shocked  at  the  blindness  and  inconsistency  of 
the  Christian  world.  These  reflections  and  feelings  have 
completely  overcome  all  the  propensity  I  ever  had  for 
disputation  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity.  Indeed  they 
have  in  a  measure  rendered  me  incapable  of  pursuing 
such  inquiries  and  discussions  ;  as  they  have  disqualified 
me  for  fixing  my  attention  upon  them,  in  such  a  degree 
as  is  necessary  to  think  and  write  to  advantage. 

What  I  formerly  wrote  relating  to  the  Trinity  I  be- 
lieved to  be  the  truth,  and  it  was  my  aim  to  speak  the 
truth  in  love.  But  I  made  no  pretensions  to  infallibili- 
ty. There  may  be  errours  in  what  I  wrote  ;  and  my 
neglect  of  further  attention  to  the  subject  may  be  a  rea- 
son why  I  have  not  discovered  them.  It  is  however 
my  hope  and  belief  that  the  book  contains  nothing  re- 
proachful to  the  Father  or  the  Son,  and  nothing  which 
can  endanger  the  souls  of  men.  If,  however,  the  reader 
shall  find  any  thing  in  it  evincing  an  unkind  temper  to- 
wards any  class  of  Christians,  he  is  desired  to  consider 
it  as  cancelled  at  my  request,  as  what  I  disapprove  and 
retract.  For,  in  my  opinion,  no  other  errour  relating 
to  the  controversy  is  so  dangerous,  as  that  wliich  is  found 
in  the  hostile  spirit  with  which  the  controversy  has 
too  commonly  been  conducted.  Whatever  may  be  the 
dignity  of  the  Son  of  God,  he  is  most  honoured  by  those 
who  are  mo^st  careful  to  imbibe  and  exhibit  the  spirit 
required  in  his  precepts,  and  displayed  in  his  example. 
However  unexceptionable  a  man's  creed  may  be  in 
other  respects,  he  has  little  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a 
friend  to  the  Saviour,  if  his  faith  works  by  hatred  instead 
of  love. 

1* 


VI  ADVERTISEMENT. 

The  bitter  controversies  among  Christians,  relating  to 
the  doctrines  of  their  religion,  may  perhaps  account  for 
the  astonishing  blindness  which  has  so  long  prevailed  in 
regard  id  the  antichristian  practice  of  War.  By  such 
disputes  the  attention  of  people  has  been  diverted  from 
the  benign  and  forbearing  spirit  of  Christianity.  A  be- 
lief in  some  mystical  doctrines,  expressed  in  language 
not  found  in  the  Scriptures,  has  been  treated  as  more 
important  than  that  love  which  is  the  "  end  of  the  com- 
mandment," "  the  fulfilling  of  the  law,"  and  '  the  bond 
of  perfectnesS."  When,  therefore,  it  shall  be  duly  un- 
derstood, that  love  is  the  sum  of  all  Christian  duty  and 
all  moral  excellence,  that  true  faith  always  works  by- 
love  and  purifies  the  heart,  that  the  precepts  of  Christ 
are  designed  to  teach  us  what  we  must  be  and  do  to  ob- 
tain eternal  life,  and  that  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel  are 
exhibited  as  motives  to  obedience  ;  then  the  bitterness 
of  theological  controversy  will  subside,  sanguinary  cus- 
toms will  no  more  disgrace  the  nations  of  Christendom, 
and  the  Pagans  may  again  exclaim — "  Behold,  how  the 
Christians  love  one  another!"  That  such  a  period  may 
soon  arrive  is  the  fervent  desire  of 

Your  afifectionate  friend, 

NOAH  WORCESTER. 


ADVERTISEMENT  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION, 


The  letters  contained  in  the  following  pages  are, 
generally,  those  which  were  formerly  published  under 
the  title  of  "  Bible  News  ;''  and  "  addressed  to  a  wor- 
thy Minister  of  the  gospel."  Some  things,  however, 
have  been  omitted  to  give  place  to  others  which  have 
been  deemed  of  more  importance.  But  whether  this 
may  be  properly  called  an  Improved  Edition^  the  pub- 
lick  will  determine. 

On  condition  that  it  shall  be  consistent  with  the  will 
of  God,  under  the  general  title  now  assumed,  the  pub- 
lick  may  expect  some  farther  communications.  A  series 
of  Inquiries  have,  for  a  long  time,  occupied  my  atten- 
tion ;  and  some  things  are  nearly  ready  for  the  press  ; 
which,  it  is  hoped,  will  give  additional  light  respecting 
the  character  of  the  Son  ofGod,  andthe  Holy  Spirit; 
and  also  additional  evidence  that  the  doctrine  of  a 
"  Three  one  God"  has  no  foundation  in  the  Bible  ;  and 
that  it  is  really  reproachful  both  to  the  Holy  ONE  of  Is- 
rael and  to  his  ONLY  SON. 

It  was  foreign  from  the  desires  of  my  heart  to  occasion 
any  schism,  tumult  or  clamour  among  profe^ssed  Chris- 
tians ;  and  I  cannot  but  deeply  lament  that  any  things 
of  such  a  nature  have  been  the  consequence  of  publishing 
my  sentiments.  It  is  most  sincerely  hoped,  that  those 
who  have  been  offended  with  me  for  thinking  for  myself 
^nd  publishing  {he  fruits  of  my  inquiries,  will  yet  allow 


Vlll  ADVERTISEMENT. 

themselves  time  for  cool  reflection  and  patient  examina- 
tion. For  it  is  confidently  believed,  that  the  time  is  not 
far  distant,  when  the  doctrine,  that  Christ  is  really  God's 
SON,  will  not  by  Christian  Ministers,  be  classed  among 
*'  damnable  heresies.'^* 

There  are  things,  respecting  which,  I  must  be  allow- 
ed to  express  some  astonishment,  because,  when  the 
things  are  compared  together,  there  seems  to  be  some- 
thing of  the  nature  of  a  paradox. 

So  far  as  1  am  informed  by  reports,  by  private  letters 
and  by  conversation,  the  sentiment  that  Christ  is  really 
God's  SON,  has,  above  every  thing  else  in  my  Letters, 
been  made  the  ground  of  objection  among  Trinitarian 
Ministers.  It  is  on  this  very  ground  that  thej  have  taken 
the  liberty  to  represent,  that  I  have  degraded  the  cha- 
racter of  Christ,  that  1  am  an  Arian,  a  Socinian,  and  a 
heretick. 

In  my  own  defence,  and  in  opposition  to  their  views, 
I  exhibit  evidence  from  Scripture,  that  believing  in  Christ, 
as  the  Son  of  God,  is  stated  as  a  condition  of  salvation  ; 
and  that  tiis6e/ie/' of  this  doctrine  is  what  is  termed  mak- 
ing God  a  liar.  Then,  my  Trinitarian  brethren,  turn 
right  about,  and  consider  me  as  really  reprehensible,  tor 
so  much  as  intimating  \hdi\  they  do  not  "  as  fully  as^''  I 
"  do,''*  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  SON  of  God. 

But  if  they  do,  rs  fully  as  I  do,  believe  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  SON  of  God,  why  the  alarm?  Why  the 
oppositioti  ?  And  why  the  cry  oi  '^  damnable  hereses  .^'^ 
If  believing,  as  I  do,  that  Christ  is  really  God's  Son; 
and  if,  as  they  affirm,  they  do,  ns fully  as  I  do,  believe 
that  he  is  the  Son  of  God.  why  are  they  free  from  the 
charge  of  '■'-  damnable  heresy  ?'*  Is  the  very  same  senti- 
a  gospel  truth,  and  in  me  a  "  damnable 


AJDVERTISEMENT.  IX 

heresy?''*  And  if  my  sentiment  be  degrading  io  Christ, 
and  they  really  believe  the  same,  why  is  not  their  sen- 
timent equally  degrading  to  the  Saviour  ? 

They  will  reply,  tl>at  they  really  believe  that  Christ 
is  the  Son  of  God  ;  but  not  in  the  seuse  I  have  given  to 
the  terms.  But  can  any  man  of  candour  honestly  say, 
that  the  sense  1  have  given  to  the  terms  is  not  the  highest 
sense  which  can  po5s?7»/?/ be  given  them,  consistent  with 
any  analogy  ?  If,  then,  these  Ministers  do  really  be- 
lieve, that  Christ  is  God's  Son,  but  not  in  the  sense  I 
have  given  to  the  terms  ;  they  must  believe  that  he  is 
the  Son  of  God  in  a  loz<oer  sense  of  the  terms.  Conse- 
quently, if  my  sentiment  be  degrading  to  Christ,  theirs 
must  be  still  more  degrading. 

Moreover,  as  I  have  adopted  the  highest  ground  of 
possible  Sonship.  if  my  sentiment  he  degrading  to  Christ, 
he  was  degraded  by  the  testimony  of  his  apostles,  his 
own  testimony,  and  the  testimony  of  God,  by  the  voice 
from  heaven.  For,  whatever  might  be  the  particular 
sen.-e,  in  which  these  witnesses  used  the  term  SON,  we 
may  be  confident,  it  was  not  in  any  sense  higher  than  the 
highest.  It  seems  to  me  reasonable  to  believe,  that  the 
terms  *'  the  Son  of  God."  were  designt-d  to  express 
either  the  nature,  or  the  dignity  of  the  Person  to  wliom 
they  were  a[)plied,  or  both  together.  I  have  supposed 
that  they  naturally  express  both  his  ?iainre  and  his  dig' 
nitij ;  but  if  in  this  I  have  been  under  a  mistake,  still  I 
do  not  see  any  room  for  the  charge  of  my  having  de- 
graded the  character  of  Christ  ;  unless  he  his  been  ofe- 
graded  by  every  being  \y\\o  has  called  him  the  Son 
OF  Gou. 

But  is  it  a  fact,  that  Trinitarians  do  believe,  as  fully 
as  I  do^  thit  Jesus  is  "  the  Son  of  the  living  God  ?" 
The  term  Son  is  indeed  used  in  different  senses  ;  f)ut  is 
there  any  one  senae  of  the  term,  in  which  a  Son  is  not  a 


X  ADVERTISEMENT. 

distinct  Being  from  him  who  stands  related  as  Father  ? 
If  not,  then,  in  acj;reemerit  with  every  analogy,  I  have 
believed  the  Son  of  God  to  be  a  distinct  Being  from  his 
Father.  But  my  Trinitarian  opponents  affirm,  as  their 
belief,  that  God  and  his  Son  are  the  same  "  individual 
Being."  This  theory  is  a  manifest  contradiction  to 
every  analogy  of  Father  and  Son.  Can  they,  then,  with 
propriety  say,  that  they  believe,  as  f idly  as  I  do.,  that 
Christ  is  the  SON  of  God?  And  by  what  authority 
are  they  to  be  justified  in  giving  a  construction  to  the 
correlative  terms  Fai/^er  and  Son,  which  has  no  analogij 
in  nature,  or  in  the  language  of  human  beings  ? 

y{.  w. 


CONTENTS. 


Part  I— On  the  Unity  of  God. 

LETTER  I. 

Page 
iDtroductory  statements  and  observations  •         .         .         13 

LETTER  IL 
Personality  defined  and  illustrated     •         ....        27 

LETTER  in. 

The  Scripture  use  of  pronouns  and  verbs  in  relation  to  God        34 

LETTER  IV. 

The  language  of  good  writers  in  favour  of  what  they  mean  to 
deny 46 

LETTER  V. 
The  mystery  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity  unfolded    .         .         ,         49 

Part  IL — On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ. 

LETTER  L 

Jesus  Christ  truly  the  Son  of  God.  -         ...         55 

LETTER  IL 

Additional  evidence  that  Christ  is  truly  the  Son  of  God         .         65 

LETTER  III. 
JS^o  absurdity  in  the  hypothesi.-*  that  Christ  is  truly  the  Son  of 
God  .         .         c 72 

LETTER  IV. 
The  Divine  Dignity  of  the  Son  of  God      .         .         ,         .         82 

LETTER  V. 
How  the  Son  of  God  became  the  ^on  of  Man  •         .  102 

LETTER  VI. 
The  preceding  doctrines  all  implied  in  Phil,  ii.5 — 11         .         114 

LETTER  VII. 
Divine  honours  due  to  the  Son  of  God      ....         135 


Xll  CONTENTS. 

LETTER  VIII. 

The  two  theories  compared,  iu  respect  to  Christ,  considered  as 
a  ■'  urf^rt-r  on  the  c;  os.?,  as  tne  Saviour  of  iue  world,  and  the 
Lord  ol  tne  universe 159 

LEITER  IX. 

On  modern  T:iuitarinn  vuvvsof  the  bon  of  God,  with  the  gene- 
ral dissonance  respecting  three  1'ers.onsiii  oue  God         -  169 

Part  Hi. — On  ihe  Character  of  the  Holy  Spipit. 

Li-:TTER  I. 
By  the  Holy  Spirit  is  intended  the  same  as  the  fulness  of  God     190 

LETTER  11. 

Some  passages  considered,  which  have  been  supposed  to  sup- 
port ihe  Personality  of  the  Holy  Spi:  it  .         .         .  202 

LETTER  III. 

Other  considerations,  to  show  tliat  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not 
intended  a  distinct  lerson       ....  .         .     210 

Pa.t  IV. — An  Examination  of  difficult  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture. 

LET  PER  I. 

Rules  of  interpretation  stated  and  applied  .         .         .217 

LETTER  II. 
A  fifth  rule  of  interpretation  stated  and  applied         .         .         222 

LETTER    III. 
Other  texts  considered 228 

LETTER  V. 

The  Son  of  God  not  the  same  Person  as  the  God  of  Israel  234 

LETTER  \T. 
Onl  Johnv.  7,0 240 

LETTER  VII. 
The  apostles'  commission  cori.«idejed       ....         243 

LETTER  VIII. 
Conclusion  250 


i^©m^B  ^^w^Mi. 


PART  I. 

ON    THE    UNITY   OF    GOD. 

LETTER  I. 
Introduclory  Statements  and  Observations-, 

REV.   SIR, 

In  solemn  prayer  to  his  Father,  our  Divine  Re- 
deemer said,  '^  This  is  life  eternal,  to  know  thee, 
the  ONLY  TRUE  GoD,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou 
hast  se/i^"  It  must  hence  appear,  that  no  inqui- 
ries can  be  more  justifiable  nor  more  interesting 
than  those  which  respect  the  true  character  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  So  far  as  we  are  in  dark- 
ness respecting  these  characters,  we  must  necessa- 
rily be  in  darkness  respecting  the  gospel  of  divine 
grace.  To  obtain  clear  and  scriptural  views  of  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  has  long 
been  a  principal  object  of  my  study  and  pursuit. 

From  my  infancy,  I  was  taught  to  believe  the 
Athanasian  doctrine  of  three  distinct  co-equal  and 
co-eternal  Persons  in  one  God.  And  I  do  not  re- 
collect that  I  had  any  doubts  of  its  correctness,  until 
several  years  after  1  began  the  work  of  the  minis- 
try. Believing  it  to  be  both  true  and  important,' 
2 


14  On  the  Unity  of  God. 

according  to  my  ability  I  (aught  it  to  others.  But 
even  while  I  taught  the  doctrine,  I  was  often  em- 
barrassed by  it  both  in  prayer  and  in  preaching.  In 
giving  thanks  to  God  for  his  astonishing  love  in 
giving  his  Son  to  die  for  our  offences,  the  theory 
has  occurred  w  ilh  a  chilling  and  confounding  influ- 
ence. These  thoughts  would  unavoidably  rush 
into  my  mind — God  and  his  Son  are  one  and  the 
same  Being  ;  the  Son  could  not  in  reality  die  or 
suffer  any  more  than  the  Father  ;  it  was  only  a 
mere  man  that  suffered,  to  whom  the  Son  was  mys- 
teriously united,  lo  my  preaching,  wiiile  express- 
ing the  love  of  God  in  sparing  not  his  own  Son, 
the  same  theory  and  the  same  train  of  thoughts 
would  occur ;  and,  in  some  instances,  both  in 
prayer  and  in  preaching,  the  influence  of  these 
thoughts  has  been  so  great  as,  for  a  time,  to  ob- 
struct my  utterance. 

Such  embarrassments  had  a  natural  tendency  to 
excite  suspicions  in  my  mind  that  there  must  be 
some  defect  in  the  theory  which  I  had  adopted. 
But  the  doctrine  had  been  so  long  and  so  generally 
believed  by  great  divines  and  good  people,  that  1 
almost  trembled  at  the  thought  of  indulging  my 
suspicions.  At  length  1  became  acquainted  with 
the  views  of  Dr.  Watts,  as  exhibited  in  connexion 
with  the  Men\oirs  of  his  life.  These  I  read  with 
care.  He  supposed  the  Son  of  God  not  to  be  a  self- 
existent  Person,  but  a  human  Being  created  before 
the  worlds,  and  intimately  united  to  the  Father,  so 
that  in  him  dwelt  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  ; 
and  that  from  this  union  his  Divinity  resulted.  His 
reasonings,  to  prove  that  the  union  of  the  Man  Je- 
sus was  with  the  Father,  and  not  with  a  second 
self-existent  Person,  appeared  to  me  conclusive 
and  unanswerable.     And  as  a  union  with  the  Fa- 


On  the  Unity  of  God,  1 6 

ther  must  imply  as  great  fulness  and  dignity  as  a 
union  with  another  Person  just  equal  with  the  Fa- 
ther, I  was  unable  to  see  why  his  theory  did  not 
support  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  in  as  ample  a 
manner  as  the  Athanasian  hypolhesis. 

Another  consideration,  which  greatly  recom- 
mended to  my  acceptance  the  theory  of  Dr.  Watts, 
was  this,  it  freed  me  from  those  distressing  em- 
barrassments which  I  had  formerly  felt  in  prayer 
and  preaching.  For  on  his  theory,  the  real  Per- 
son, who  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  was  the  real 
Sufferer  on  the  cross. 

Having  obtained  this  relief  to  my  mind,  I  rested 
pretty  quietly  for  several  years  as  a  believer  in 
Watts's  theory  of  the  Trinity.  But  my  apprehen- 
sions and  ideas  were  so  indistinct,  that  I  indulged 
no  thought  of  writing  on  the  subject  with  any  view 
to  publicaiinn,  until  the  year  1807.  In  the  course 
of  that  year,  my  attention  was  in  a  peculiar  man- 
ner arrested  by  the  natural  import  of  this  text, 
"  But  to  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father,  of 
whom  are  all  things,  and  we  in  him  ;  and  one  Lord, 
Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  by 
him."*  I  noted,  that  in  this  verse  the  apostle  was 
exhibiting  the  faith  of  christians,  in  contrast  with 
the  faith  of  heathens.  In  the  preceding  verse  he 
had  said,  "  For  though  there  be  that  are  called 
gods,  whether  in  heaven  or  in  earth,  (as  there  be 
gods  many  and  lords  many.")  Such  is  the  faith  of 
the  heathen  world.  With  this  he  contrasts  the 
faith  of  Christians,  "  But  to  us  there  is  but  one 
God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we 
in  him  ;  and  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom 
are  all  things,  and  we  by  him."     The  ideas  which 

*  1  Cor.  viii.  (5. 


16  On  the   Unity  of  God. 

appeared  to  me  to  lie  plainly  on  the  face  of  ihis^ 
text  were  these  : — 

1.  That  the  one  self-existent  God  is  one 
Person,  viz.  the  Father.  The  apostle  does  not 
say,  But  to  us  there  is  but  one  God,  yet  this  one 
God  is  three  Persons.  His  language  is,  ''  But  to 
us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father."  He  dis- 
tinctly names  the  Person  whom  he  styles  the  one 
God,  and  calls  him  the  Father. 

2.  That  this  one  God  is  the  Fountain  or  Source 
of  all  things — '^  or  whom  are  all  things,'''^ 

3.  That  Jesus  Christ,  the  one  Lord,  is  a  Person 
as  distinct  from  the  Being  of  God  as  he  is  from  the 
Person  of  the  Father.  After  the  apostle  had 
distinctly  told  who  is  the  one  God,  he  then  pro- 
ceeded to  say,  "  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ.''' 
As  he  had  named  the  one  God,  so  he  also  named 
the  one  Lord. 

4.  That  Jesus^  Christ,  the  one  Lord,  is  the  Me- 
dium or  Agent,  through  whom  or  by  whom  God 
displays  his  fulness  in  the  production  of  events — 
"  BY  zvhom  are  all  things^  and  we  by  him." 

Such  being  the  views  I  had  of  the  text,  a  field 
was  opened  which  appeared  clear,  spacious,  and 
delightful.  This  field  1  entered,  and  began  to 
write  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  in  a  great 
measure  conformable  to  the  views  of  Dr.  Watts. 
Nearly  two  years  my  mind  was  absorbed  in  these 
inquiries,  and  my  time  employed  in  writing  on  the 
subject.  I  wrote  pretty  largely,  and  thought  I 
had  produced  something  which  might  be  useful  to 
the  publick. 

But  while  writing  for  die  press,  it  frequently  oc- 
curred to  my  mind  that  the  dejlnitive  and  emphali' 
cal  language  used  in  Scripture  respecting  the  Son 
of  GoDp  did  import  a  higher  oharacter  than  is  im- 


On  the   Unity  of  God.  17 

j)liecl  in  Watts's  theory — that  the  terms  own  Son, 
ONLY  BEGOTTEN  SoN,  &LC,  did  import  that  Christ 
was  the  Son  of  God  in  the  most  strict  and  proper 
sense  of  the  terms.  Alter  I  had  written  what  1 
intended  for  the  press,  that  idea  became  more  and 
more  impressed  on  my  mind  as  the  natural  mean- 
ing o\  the  word  of  God.  But  though  I  could  not 
fiijd  that  any  person  had  ventured  to  advance  the 
idea,  J  viewed  it  to  be  my  duty  to  examine  the 
point  with  the  utmost  care.*    This  I  have  attempt- 

*  Since  the  first  edition  of  these  letters  satisfactory  evidence 
has  been  obtained  that  many  others  have  asserted  the  same  views 
of  the  bon  of  God  which  are  contained  in  these  letters.  The  dis- 
pute between  Arius  and  his  opponents  had  no  respect  to  the  nunt' 
her  of  persons  in  deity  i  but  sim})ly  to  the  derived  nature  of  the 
Son  of  God.  Arius  maintained  "•  that  the  bon  was  not  begotten 
of  the  Father,  i.  e.  produced  of  his  substance^  Imt  created  out  of 
nothing."  On  the  contrary,  the  Council  of  Nice  affirmed  "  that 
the  -Son  was  peculiarly  of  the  Father,  being  of  his  substance  as  be- 
gotten of  nim  '  'I  he  creed  of  that  Council  contains  no  idea  of  a 
*'  three  one  God."  The  '^  one  God''  is  clearl^^  represented  as 
07ie  Person  only  and  the  Son  as  derived  from  God.  It  was  by 
adding  to  the  Nicene  Creed  that  the  Council  at  Constantinople 
made  out  the  doctrine  of  a  *Mhree  one  God."  Dr  Mosheitn 
says,  ''  They  g.ve  the  finishing  touch  to  what  the  Council  of 
Nice  had  left  impertect,  and  fixed  in  a  full  and  determinate  man- 
ner  the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God."   V^ol.  I.  p.  426. 

Mr.  Milner  says,  "  This  Council  very  accurately  defined  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  enlarging  a  little  the  Ni<-ene  Creed, 
they  delivered  it  to  us  as  we  novv  have  it  in  our  communion  ser- 
vice." The  Macedonian  heresy  gave  occasion  to  a  more  expli- 
cit representation  of  the  third  Person  in  the  Trinity."  Vol.  If, 
p.  184—5. 

Dr.  Lardner  informs  us  about  the  "  little"  which  this  Council 
enlarged  the  Nicene  creed.  It  was  this — "  The  Lord  and  Giver 
of  hie,  wlio  proceedeth  from  the  Father  and  ttie  Son  ;  who  with 
the  Father  and  the  Son  is  worsnipped  and  glorified,  who  spake  by 
the  prophets  '' 

This  was  not  a  very  "  little"  to  add  ;  for  the  Nicene  creed 
conveys  no  idea  that  the  Spirit  is  a  person,  but  simply  says  *'  we 
believe  in  the  Holy  Spirit." 

The  Doctor  also  introduces  the  following  concession  of  Bishop 
2* 


18  0^1  the  Unity  of  God, 

ed  to  do ;  and  the  result  of  ray  inquiries  on  that 
point  is  this,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  as  truly  the  Son 
of  God,  as  Isaac  was  the  son  of  Abraham  ;  and 
that  this  view  of  the  matter  is  essential  to  a  due 
estimation  of  the  love  of  God  as  displayed  in  the 
gospel  of  his  grace.  It  is  also  my  real  belief,  that 
this  view  of  the  subject  will  be  found  much  better 
to  harmonize  with  the  Scriptures,  and  unspeakably 
more  honorary  to  the  Father  and  to  the  Son,  than 
any  other  hypothesis  which  has  been  advanced. 

Having,  therefore,  experienced  such  a  revolution- 
in  my  own  views,  I  have  occasion  to  write  anew  on 
the  subject.  1  have  concluded  to  write  in  the  form 
of  letters,  and  to  address  them  to  you,  as  to  a  can- 
did friend  and  brother  in  Christ. 

While  writing  on  my  former  ground,  1  derived 
some  consolation  from  the  thought  that  my  views 
harmonized  wiih  the  theory  of  Dr.  Watts.  1  am 
now  in  a  measure  deprived  of  that  source  of  con- 
solation ;  but  I  have  another  which  1  esteem  much 
more  important,  viz.  that  my  views  now  harmonize 
"with  the  most  obvious  and  natural  moaning  of  the 
language  of  God,  of  Christ,  and  his  apostles  ; 
and  that  if  I  am  in  an  errour,  my  erronr  has  not  re- 
sulted from  departing  from  the  natural  import  of 
scripture  language,  but  from  preferring  that  to  a 
meaning  which  '\s  foreign,  figurative^  or  mystical. 

There  is  one  formidable  objection  to  my  views, 
which  I  have  to  meet  in  the  very  threshold  of  my 

Burnet — "  So  that  the  Creed  here  called  the  Nicene  Creed,  is  in- 
deed the  Constantinopolitan  Creed,  with  the  addition  of  Fihoque 
by  the  Western  c  hurch."  See  first  postcript  to  the  "  letter  oa 
the  Logos."  p.  1}>5. 

Thus  we  have  three  Trinitarians  and  one  Unitarian  concurring 
3d  the  fa(  t  that  the  doctrine  of  a  '•'•  three  one  God"  was  not  finish' 
(jduntilA.  D.  381. 


On  the  Unity  of  God.  19 

communications  on  this  subject.  I  may  therefore 
now  state  and  answer  it,  that  the  way  may  be 
opened  for  a  candid  hearing. 

It  is  said,  that  my  views  imply  a  departure  from 
a  great  and  important  article  of  the  orthodox  faith, 
which  has  for  many  centuries  been  admitted  by  the 
great  body  of  the  most  pious  Christians,  and  has 
been  advocated  by  great  numbers  of  learned  and 
pious  divines  ;  that  it  has  long  been  admitted  as  an 
article  of  Christian  faith,  that  there  are  three  dis- 
tinct, co-equal,  and  self-existent  Persons  in  the 
ONE  God  ;  and  that  it  would  be  reproachful  to  the 
great  Head  of  the  church,  to  suppose  that  he  would 
suffer  his  most  faithful  friends  to  be  so  long  in  an 
errour  on  a  point  of  so  great  importance. 

This,  I  confess,  has  appeared  to  me  the  most 
weighty  objection  which  has  ever  been  stated 
against  the  theory  I  have  adopted.  I  shall  there- 
fore attempt  a  serious  and  candid  reply, 

1.  I  have  no  inclination  to  doubt  either  the  piety 
or  the  learning  of  those  divines  who  have  advocat- 
ed the  doctrine  of  three  distinct  Persons  in  one 
God.  Many  such,  I  doubt  not,  have  already  been 
admitted  into  the  realms  of  bliss,  and  others,  I  be- 
lieve, are  in  the  way  which  leads  to  the  same  state. 
Some  of  this  class  of  divines  with  whom  1  am  ac- 
quainted, I  esteem  as  the  excellent  of  the  earth, 
and  as  vastly  my  superiours  in  piety,  learning,  and 
discernment.  Biv.  fallibility  has  been  the  rommon 
lot  of  Christians,  as  long,  at  least,  as  the  Afhana- 
sian  theory  has  been  received  as  the  orlhorJox 
faith.  And  among  all  the  great  and  good  divines, 
I  cannot  find  one  who  has  ever  given  evidence  of 
infallibility.  Great  and  good  divines,  like  other 
gno,|  people,  have  been  linble  to  err.  Nor  can  I 
find,  that  Christ  ever  promised  that  he  would  not- 


20  On  the   Unity/  of  God. 

suffer  his  church  to  fall  into  any  errour  in  senti- 
ment respecting  the  charncier  of  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  ihe  Holy  Spirit.  Therefore,  however 
improbable  it  may  appear  to  you  (hat  there  is  any 
incorrectness  in  the  doctrine  which  has  been  so  long 
and  so  generally  received,  and  so  ably  and  abun- 
dantly advocated,  the  possibility  that  there  may  be 
incorrectness  must  be  admitted.  An  investigation, 
therefore,  may  be  highly  proper  and  useful. 

2.  I  would  ask,  Is  it  not  a  truth,  that,  for  many 
centuries,  the  doctrine  before  us  has  heen  popular 
— so  popular  that  a  man  must  run  the  hazard  of 
losing  his  reputation  for  piety,  if  he  should  call  in 
question  its  correctness  ?  And  would  not  such  a 
stdle  of  things  naturally  preclude  any  general,  tho- 
rough, and  impartial  examination  of  the  subject  ? 
Would  not  many,  even  among  good  people  and 
good  ministers,  be  likely  to  choose  to  take  it  tor 
gi-anted  that  ih^  popular  doctrine  is  true,  and  con- 
tent themselves  with  searching  the  Scriptures  for 
texts  to  support  it  ?  Surh  a  course  of  proceeding, 
I  confess,  I  adopted  for  a  number  of  years.  Such 
was  my  veneration  for  the  characters  of  those  wri- 
ters who  had  defended  the  theory,  that  it  seemed 
to  me  safe  to  follow  them.  My  object,  therefore, 
in  studying  on  the  subject,  was  merely  to  support 
the  doctiiiie.  I  do  not  know  that  others  have  been 
so  deficient;  but  if  they  have,  this  may  be  one  rea- 
son why  the  dorinne  has  beeti  so  long  and  so  gene- 
rally admitted. 

The  proposition  which  affirms  that  there  are 
three  distinct  P.-rsons  in  one  God.  is  surely  not  a 
Bible  p!"oposiiio!j — 1  am  willing  to  adrnit  it  as  a 
proposition  formed  by  good  men  to  exj^ress  their 
vitws  of  the  meanhig  o{  G-)'\''i>  word.  Bui  we  have 
the  Bible  before  us,  as  well  as  those   who  formed 


On  the   Unity  of  God.  2t 

the  proposition,  and  it  is  our  duty  to  bring  the  doc- 
trine to  the  Bible  for  examination,  and  not  merely 
for  support. 

3.  Do  not  your  peculiar  sentiments,  as  a  Hop- 
kinsian,  imply  a  departure  from  doctrines  which 
have  been  considered  as  highly  important,  which 
have  been  generally  received  for  several  centuries 
by  the  most  pious  Christians,  and  which  have  been 
advocated  by  multitudes  of  great  and  good  divines  ? 
Why  were  you  not  afraid  of  impeaching  the  charac- 
ter of  the  great  Head  of  the  church  by  adopting  sen- 
timents in  a  manner  which,  in  your  own  view,  would 
imply  that  he  had  sufTered  his  most  faithful  friends 
for  a  long  time  to  be  in  an  errour  on  some  impor- 
tant points  ?  Why  were  you  not  contented  to  re- 
ceive for  truth  the  theories  of  our  pious  forefathers, 
and  thus  have  saved  yourself  the  trouble  of  labo- 
rious investigation,  and  from  the  reproaches  of 
those  who  have  viewed  you  as  departing  from  doc- 
trines which  have  long  been  received  by  the  pious 
and  faithful  friends  of  Christ  ?  It  docs  not,  sir, 
appear,  that  our  Hopkinsian  brethren  have  been 
much  afraid  of  impeaching  the  character  of  Christ, 
by  preaching  and  writing  what  they  have  thought 
to  be  the  truth,  although,  in  some  respects,  they 
contradicted  theories  which  have  long  been  receiv- 
ed as  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel. 

4.  I  willingly  admit,  that  the  great  body  of 
Christ's  faithful  friends  have  been  so  far  united,  as 
to  adopt,  as  an  article  of  faith,  a  proposition  which 
affirms  three  distinct  Persons  in  one  God.  But  is  it 
not  a  solemn  truth,  that  nineteen-twentieths  of 
those,  who  have  professed  to  believe  the  article, 
have  never  examined  the  terms  of  the  pi oposition 
so  as  to  be  able  to  tell  in  what  sense  they  believed 
it  to  be  true  ?     And  have  pot  the  great  and  piovts 


22  On  the  Unity  of  God, 

divines  in  every  age,  since  the  proposition  was 
adopted,  been  greatly  divided  as  to  its  real  im- 
port F 

Mr.  Jones,  and  some  others,  have  informed  us, 
that  by  the  three  Persons  they  mean  three  dis- 
tinct Agents.  But  Dr.  Hopkins  says,  ''  It  must 
be  careT'illy  observed,  that  when  this  word  is  ap- 
plied to  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
as  ihree  distinct  Persons,  it  does  not  import  the 
same  distinction  as  when  applied  to  men."  But 
he  does  not  pretend  to  be  able  to  tell  what  the 
word  does  import^  as  applied  to  the  Deity.  There 
are  other  ministers  who  frankly  own  that  they 
know  not  what  is  intended  by  Persons  in  the  pro- 
position. 

Dr.  Watts,  in  his  day,  said,  "  The  common  or 
scholasiick  explication  of  the  Trinity,  which  has 
been  long  and  universally  receivcJ,  and  been  call- 
ed orthodox,  is,  that  God  is  but  one  simple,  infi- 
nite, and  eternal  Spirit :  Hence  it  follows,  that  the 
Divine  essence,  powers,  and  essential  properties 
of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Spirit,  in  the  God- 
head, are  numerically  the  very  same  :  that  it  is  the 
same  numerical  consciousness,  understanding,  will, 
and  power,  which  belongs  to  the  Father,  that  also 
belongs  to  the  Son  and  to  the  Holy  Sjiirit :  and 
that  the  sacred  Three  are  distinguished  only  by 
the  superadded,  relative  properties  of  paternity, 
filiation,  and  precesswn.'^^ 

Perhaps  the  word  procession  should  have  been 
used,  instead  of  ^^ precession  ;''^  but  1  hyve  given 
the  word  as  1  found  it  in  Memoirs  of  Dr.  Watts, 
page  98. 

If  Dr.  Watts  gave  a  true  account  of  what  had 
"  hvx'D  long  aol  universally  rfceived"  as  the  ortho- 
dox taiih,  Mr.  Jones  and  those  who  agree  with  him 


On  the  Unity  of  God.  25 

in  sentiment  have  greatly  departed  from  the  ortho- 
dox faith.  The  orthodox  taiih,  according  to  Dr. 
Watts,  implied  no  more  than  one  infinite,  self-ex- 
istent Agent ;  the  terras  Father^  Son,  and  Holy 
GAo^/,  denoted  ''superadded,  relative  properties." 
But  Mr.  Jones  supposes  three  distinct  Agents. 

Some,  by  the  three  distinci  Persons,  have  under- 
stood no  more  than  one  Being  acting  in  three  dis- 
tinct offices.  The  same  Person  or  Being  is  Fa- 
ther as  Creator,  So2i  as  Redeemer,  and  Holy 
Ghost  as  Sanctifier,  This  may  harmonize  with 
the  doctrine  of"  superadded,  relative  properties." 

In  the  conclusion  of  the  '■'  Memoirs  of  Dr. 
Watts,"  the  writer  says,  "  If  I  understand  the 
great  reformer  Calvin  aright,  he  in  like  manner 
conceived  of  the  Word  and  Spirit  as  the  Wisdom 
and  Povi^ER  of  the  Deity  personified.*  The  pious 
Mr.  Baxter  adofited  a  like  personification."  The 
same  writer  quotes  from  Mr.  Baxter  a  passage, 
which  shows  that  there  had  been  other  methods 
still  of  explaining  the  personality  of  the  Trinity. 

"  Abundance  of  hereticks."  says  Mr.  Baxter, 
"  have  troubled  the  church  with  their  self-devised 
opinions  about  the  Trinity,  and  the  Person  and 
nature  of  Christ.  And  I  am  loth  to  say  how  much 
many  of  the  orthodox  have  troubled  it  also,  with 
their  self-conceited,  misguided  and  uncharitable 
zeal  against  those  they  judged  hereticks.  I  would 
advise  ihe  reader  to  be  none  of  them  that  shall 
charge  with  heresy  all  those  who  say  that  the  three 
Persons  are  Deus  seipsum  intelligens,  Deus  a  seip- 

*  When  this  passage  was  quoted  I  had  not  seen  Calvin's  "  In- 
stitutes." lie  indeed  says  things  whirh  favour  the  idea  that  the 
wisdom  and  power  of  Deity  are  personified,  for  the  Son  and  Holu 
Spirit.  But  he  says  other  things  of  a  very  diiferenl  complexion. 
See  the  quotations  in  Part  II.  Letter  iX. 


24  On  the   Unity  of  God, 

so  intellectus^  et  Deus  a  seipso  amatvs,  ({hough  I 
am  not  one  )  nor  yet  those  holy  men  whom  I  have 
cited,  and  many  others,  who  expressly  say  that 
Potentia,  Sapientia^  et  Amor,  Power,  Wisdom,  and 
Love,  are  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost." 

I'hus,  sir,  we  may  see  how  the  great  and  pious 
divines, wiih  which  God  has  blessed  his  church,  have 
been  divided  in  their  real  opinions  of  the  meaning 
of  a  proposition  which  they  all  had  adopted  as  an 
article  of  faith.  One  class  out  of  six  has  agreed 
with  you  in  sentiment,  that  by  the  three  Persons 
are  intended  three  distinct  Agents  ;  a  second  class 
uses  the  terra  Persons  in  an  indefinite  sense,  with- 
out explanation  ;  a  third,  by  three  Person?,  under- 
stands three  offices  ^  the  fourth  supposes  one  pro- 
per Person,  and  His  Wisdom  and  Potoer  personified 
for  the  other  two  Persons  ;  the  fifth  supposes  the 
three  Persons  to  be  three  principal  attributes  of 
God^  Power,  Wisdom,  and  Love  ;  the  other  sup- 
poses the  personality  to  mean  no  more  than  this, 
God  understanding  himself  God  understood  by  him- 
self, and  God  loving  himself 

Of  what  use,  sir,  to  Christianity,  can  that  propo- 
sition be,  which  is  thus  variously  understood  by 
the  best  divines  ?  While  there  is  so  great  a  varie- 
ty of  real  opinion  about  ihe  import  of  the  article, 
their  agreeing  to  adopt  it  as  an  article  of  faith  can 
be  no  evidence  of  its  correctness.  But  is  not  the 
disagreement  as  to  xhe  import  of  the  word  Person, 
in  the  proposition,  some  evidence  that  the  word  is 
improperly  used  1  You  cannot  justly  accuse  me 
of  differing  more  in  real  opinion  from  those  who 
have  adopted  this  article,  than  they  differ  from 
each  other.  And  1  would  suggest  it  for  your  seri- 
ous consideration,  whether  your  departure  from  the 
ancient  orthodox  faith  is  not  infinitely  greater  than 


On  the  Unity  of  God.  25 

mine — yea,  greater  by  tzoo  infinities  ?  You  sup- 
pose thrte  sell-existent,  infinite  Agents;  1  suppose 
but  one  ;  and  if  Dr.  Watts  fairly  stated  the  expli- 
cation of  the  Trinity,  which  had  ''  been  long  and 
universally  received"  as  orthodox,  the  ancient 
orthodoxy  implied  but  one  infinite  Agent.  And 
with  his  statement  agrees  all  but  one  of  the  seve- 
ral explanations  which  have  been  enumerated ; 
the  personality  was  evidently  understood  as  figu- 
rative. 

The  evidence  we  have  before  us,  that  great  and 
good  men  have  been  greatly  divided  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  personality  of  the  Trinity,  may  serve  to 
evince  the  propriety  of  the  caution  given  by  Mr. 
Baxter  against  indulging  a  censorious  spirit  one  to- 
wards another.  The  more  deep  and  mysterious 
the  subject,  the  more  occasion  we  have  for  self- 
diffidence,  and  the  more  room  for  the  exercise  of 
Christian  candour  towards  those  who  may  differ 
from  us  in  opinion. 

The  experience  I  have  had  of  my  own  fallibility 
may  be  considered  as  an  admonition  to  me  against 
indulging  a  self-confident  spirit  respecting  the  cor- 
rectness of  my  present  views.  I  have  indeed  been 
long  searching  and  labouring  to  ascertain  the  truth, 
and  to  bring  my  views  to  harmonize  with  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  of  God.  But  I  am  yet  far  from  any 
claim  to  infallibility.  I  can  hardly  expect  that  I 
shall  be  free  from  mistakes  in  explaining  the  nu- 
merous passages  of  Scripture  which  will  naturally 
come  under  consideration.  But  this  I  know,  that 
I  have  no  interest  to  serve  by  perverting  or  misap- 
plying the  Scriptures.  It  is,  I  hope  my  aim,  to  art 
faithfully  for  Christ  in  attempting  to  explain  his 
word  ;  and  with  him  I  may  safely  leave  the  event. 
3 


26  On  the   Unity  of  God. 

I  am  not  insensible  that  I  expose  to  peril  the  lit- 
tle share  of  reputation  which  I  have  hitherto  pos- 
sessed by  taking  ground  so  singular  and  unpopular. 
Nor  am  I  at  all  indifferent  as  to  the  esteem  and  good 
will  of  my  fathers  and  brethren  with  whom  1  have 
been  in  fellowship.  My  esteem  for  them  is  not  at 
all  abated  by  any  change  in  my  own  sentiments; 
and  it  is  my  wish  to  give  them  no  occasion  of  of- 
fence in  my  manner  of  writing.  It  will  be  my  duty 
to  expose  what  I  esteem  to  be  erroneous  in  their 
sentiments  ;  but  I  hope  to  do  it  in  the  spirit  of  meek- 
ness, of  candour,  and  of  love.  My  dissenting  from 
them  in  opinion  is  surely  no  reason  why  I  should 
be  offended  with  them  ;  and  1  am  not  sensible  that 
it  is  a  reason  why  tkey  should  be  ofiended  with  me. 
But  should  they  view  my  dissent  as  ground  of  of- 
fence, I  hope  they  will  deal  with  me  in  a  gospel 
temper  and  on  gospel  principles,  duly  bearing  in 
mind  that  bitter  revilings  and  sound  reasonings  are 
things  of  a  very  different  nature.* 

Three  principal  propositions  1  shall  attempt  to  il- 
lustrate and  support,  in  the  course  of  my  letters  to 
you-^viz. 

I.  That  the  self-existent  God  is  only  one  Person. 

II.  That  Jesus  Christ  is  God's  own  Son, 

III.  That  by  the  Holy  Ghost  is  intended  the  ful- 
ness of  God,  or  the  efficient,  productive  emanations 
of  Divine  fulness. 

In  support  of  the  first  proposition,  I  shall,  in  my 
next  Letter,  distinctly  consider  what  is  meant  by 
the  word  Person, 

*  Such  was  my  ''  hope^''  when  I  published  the  first  edition.  I 
must  now  say  I  wish  it  may  be  so  in  future.  But  alas  !  "  what 
is  man  1" 


Oil  the   Unit)/  of  God.  27 


LETTER  II 


Personality  defined  and  illustrated, 

REV.  SIR, 

It  has  been  supposed  to  be  a  very  difficult  thing 
to  ascertain  in  what  personality  consists,  or  what 
constitutes  personality.  It  may,  however,  be  found 
an  easy  thing  to  tell  what  is  nieant  by  the  word 
Person,  as  it  is  used  in  Scripture,  and  in  common 
discourse.  I  will  exhibit  a  lew  instances  ol"  the  use 
of  the  term  in  the  Scripture-. 

"  Noah  the  eighth  Person."  *'  Joseph  was  a 
goodly  Person."  "  No  uncircumcised  Person  shall 
eat  thereof."  "  Whosoever  hath  killed  any  Per- 
son." "  Goest  to  battle  in  thine  own  Person." 
"  A  rififhteous  Person."  "  A  wicked  Person." 
«'  Thy  Person,"     "  His  Person." 

Such  a  manner  of  nsing  the  term  is  common  in  all 
writings,  with  which  1  aui  acquainted.  We  apply 
the  term  Person  to  any  man,  or  woman,  to  an  angel, 
to  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  God.  But  we  do  not  apply 
it  to  any  class  of  beings  below  the  human  race. 
The  pronouns /le  or  5^6,  &;c.  we  apply  to  the  bru- 
tal creation  ;  but  it  would  be  thought  an  impropri- 
ety of  speech  to  apply  the  term  Person  to  the  most 
sagacious  horse  or  dog.  By  careful  observation, 
it  will  be  found  that  we  use  the  personal  pronouns 
in  reference  to  any  beings  which  are  supposed  to 
possess  animal  life  ;  but  the  word  Person  is  proper- 
ly applied  only  to  intelligent  Beings,  Inanimate 
objects,  in  figurative  language,  are  often  personi- 
iied  ;  but  the  very  idea  andm^Je  of  personification 


2S  On  the   Unity  of  God. 

implies  what  is  intended  by  the  word  Person^  viz. 

an   INTELLIGENT   BeING. 

What  is  meant  by  the  word  Person^  is  just  as  ob- 
vious to  common  people  as  what  is  meant  by  the 
^noon.  And  we  have  no  more  occasion  to  inquire 
what  constitutes  personality  in  order  to  tell  what  is 
meant  by  the  word  Person,  than  we  have  to  ascer- 
tain the  essence  of  the  moon  in  order  to  tell  what 
object  is  called  by  that  name.  And  it  is  no  more 
difficult  to  ascertain  what  constitutes  personality, 
than  to  ascertain  what  constitutes  intelligent  exis- 
tence. 

It  may  be  objected,  that  there  is  no  part  or  pro- 
perty of  a  man  but  what  is  spoken  of  in  the  posses- 
sive case,  as  though  it  were  something  distinct  from 
personality.  We  say,  his  hands,  his  feet,  his  head, 
his  intellects  J  his  heart,  his  body,  his  soul,  as  though 
personality  were  something  distinct  from  any  of 
these. 

This  is  all  granted  ;  but  in  the  same  manner  we 
use  the  word  Person  itself  ;  we  say  his  Person, 
And  thus  the  term  is  used  in  the  Bible,  "  the  ex- 
press image  o^ his  Person.^^  But  it  does  not  hence 
follow,  that  personality  consists  in  something  dis- 
tinct from  Person. 

As  one  person  is  one  intelligent  Being,  so  two  or 
three  persons  are  two  or  three  intelligent  Beings. 

So  obvious  is  this  to  the  common  sense  of  man- 
kind that  it  may  be  doubted  whether  any  man  can 
form  any  other  idea  of  two  persons  than  that  of  two 
intelligent  Beings.  If  it  be  understood  that  we  are 
speaking  of  human  Beings,  and  mention  is  made  of 
two  persons,  it  as  clearly  conveys  the  idea  of  two  inr 
telligent  Beings,  as  if  we  should  say  tiuo  men.  The 
same  observation  will  apply  to  angels. 

Some  writers  of  eminence  have  suggested,  or  as- 
serted, that  Person  and  Being  arc  not  terms  of  the 


On  the   Unity  of  God,  29 

same  import  ;  and  therefore  it  may  imply  no 
contradiction  to  say,  three  persons  in  one  Being  or 
one  God.  But  I  have  not  found  that  they  have  at- 
tempted to  explain  the  difference  between  Person 
and  Being,  1  shall  not  pretend  that  these  terms  are 
uniformly  of  synonymous  import,  for  the  term  Be- 
ing may  be  applied  to  any  object  which  exists,  but 
the  term  Person  is  applicable  only  to  intelligent  ex- 
istence. But  the  phrases  an  intelligent  Person  and 
an  intelligent  Being  may  properly  be  considered 
as  synonymous.  If  you  think  otherwise  be  pleas- 
ed to  explain  the  difference. 

In  writing  on  divinity,  it  is  highly  important  that 
we  should  use  language  according  to  its  common 
acceptation.  To  make  use  of  terms,  of  which  we 
can  give  no  intelligible  explanation,  has  no  ten- 
dency to  communicate  light.  Those  who  make 
use  of  terms  in  relation  to  God  or  to  Christ,  ought, 
at  least  to  be  able  and  willing  to  tell  their  own 
meaning  in  the  use  of  those  terms.  If  1  say  that  the 
Father  and  the  Son  are  two  distinct  Persons  I  ought 
to  be  willing  to  tell  what  I  mean  by  the  word  Per- 
son. And  if  I  have  any  definite  meaning  to  the 
term,  it  may  be  expected  that  in  some  way,  I  can 
make  it  known. 

But  it  I  have  no  definite  meaning  to  the  term, 
how  is  it  possible  that  another  person  can  tell 
whether  he  agrees  or  disagrees  with  me  in  senti- 
ment ? 

If  I  only  slate,  that  I  believe  that  the  Father  and 
the  Son  are  two  distinct  P-rsons,  there  is,  perhaps, 
no  Christian  but  will  say  h*:*  believes  the  same. 
Bit  as  soon  as  I  explain  what  I  mean  by  the  word 
Person  many  will  dissent  and  avow  their  disa- 
greement. Havirjg  thus  exposed  myself  to  their 
disapprobation,  by  explaining  my  meaning,  may 
3* 


30  On  the   Unity  of  God, 

1  not  be  pcrmilted  to  ask  what  they  mean  by  the 
term,  that  I  may  be  able  to  compare  the  two  opin- 
ions ?  And  ought  I  to  receive  it  as  a  satisfactory 
answer,  if  I  am  told  that  Person  and  Being  are  not 
the  same,  and  that  personality  is  something  which 
cannot  be  defined  ? 

As  you,  sir,  profess  to  believe  that  the  Father 
and  the  Son  are  two  persons,  and  yet  but  one  in- 
telligent Being,  1  would  ask  whether  the  Father  is 
not  one  intelligent  Being?  And  is  not  the  Son 
also  an  intelligent  Being?  Was  he  not  an  intel- 
ligent Being  who  came  into  the  world  to  die  for 
our  sins  ?  And  was  he  who  came  and  he  who  sent 
him  one  and  the  same  intelligent  Being  ? 

As  you  also  deny  the  human  personality  of  Christ, 
or  that  as  a  derived  Being,  he  was  a  Person,  and 
still  admit  that  he  was,  in  respect  to  his  human 
nature  truly  a  Man,  I  would  ask  what  addition  , 
would  have  been  necessary  to  constitute  that  Man 
a  proper  person  ?  If  we  deny  that,  as  a  derived 
intelligence,  he  was  a  Person,  will  it  not  be  difficult 
to  make  it  appear  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as 
personality  in  Man  ?  Sin  excepted,  what  do  we 
find  in  ourselves  which  was  not  found  in  the  Man 
Christ  Jesus  ?  If  we  take  ground  respecting  per- 
sonality, on  which  it  cannot  be  proved  that  there 
is  any  such  thing  as  a  human  Person^  how  shall  we 
be  able  to  show  that  there  is  any  propriety  in  ap- 
plying the  term  Person  to  the  Deity  ?  It  is  a  clear 
case,  that  so  long  as  we  remain  ignorant  of  the 
import  of  the  term,  we  can  never  be  sure  that  it  is 
properly  applied. 

I  have  not,  sir,  pursued  this  inquiry  with  any  de- 
sire to  perplex  the  minds  of  others,  or  to  multiply 
or  widen  the  breaches  which  exist  among  pro- 
fessed Christians,  but^  if  possible,  to  do  someihing 
which  may  contribute  to  greater  unanimity.     Noth- 


On  the   Unity  of  God.-  31 

ing,  perhaps,  has  contributed  more  to  keep  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Trinity  involved  in  obscurity,  than  an 
indefinite  and  unmeaning  use  of  the  term  Person. 
I  will  not  affirm  that  the  definition  1  have  given  is 
perfect ;  but  I  will  hope,  that  by  frankly  avowing 
my  own  views,  and  exposing  myself  to  the  censure 
of  others,  I  may,  at  least,  be  the  occasion  of  further 
inquiry  and  further  light  on  the  subject* 

Permit  me  now,  sir,  to  appeal  from  your  theory 
to  your  enlightened  common  sense.  Did  you  ever 
conceive  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  as  one  and  the 
same  intelligent  Being  ?  When  you  thank  God 
for  the  gift  of  his  Son  to  die  for  us,  do  you  not  uni- 
formly conceive  of  the  Father  as  one  intelligent 
Being,  and  of  the  Son  as  another?  From  my  own 
past  experience,  I  may  presume,  that  according  to 
your  common  sense,  the  Father  and  the  Son  are 
as  distinctly  two  intelligent  Beings  as  Abraham  and 
Isaac.  Of  what  importance  then  can  it  be  to  Chris- 
tianity, to  attempt  to  support  a  theory  of  personality 
which  is  undefinable  and  ineffable,  which  does  not 
accord  with  the  common  acceptation  of  the  term 
Person,  nor  with  the  practical  views  even  of  those 
who  adopt  it?  Scarcely  any  thing  is  more  obvi- 
ous to  the  common  understanding  of  men,  than 
what  is  usually  intended  by  the  word  Person;  but 
when  the  term  is  applied  to  the  Deity,  they  must 
be  told  that  it  means  something  which  cannot  be 
explained.  But  if  ^he  explanation  I  have  given  of 
the  meaning  of  the  word  Person  shall  be  found  to 
accord  with  the  common  sense  of  mankind,  and  with 
the  practical  views  of  Christians  in  relation  to  the 
Father  and  Son,  may  I  not  hope  to  escape  the  cen- 
sure of  those  who  profess  not  to  know  what  is  meant 
by  Person  as  applied  to  God. 

It  will  probably  be  urged,  that  God  is  incompre- 


32  On  ihe   Unity  of  God. 

hensible,  and  that  the  doctrine  which  affirms  three 
persons  in  one  God  or  one  Being,  is  no  more  above 
our  comprehension  than  the  eternity  and  self-exis- 
tence of  Jehovah. 

It  will  readily  be  granted,  that  God  is  to  us  in- 
comprehensible in  his  Being  and  all  his  attributes; 
yet,  in  respect  to  any  of  his  attributes,  we  can  ex- 
plain what  we  mean  by  the  terms  in  which  they 
are  expressed.  We  can  so  explain  as  to  make  each 
other  understand  wJiat  we  mean  by  the  terms  eterni- 
ty and  self-existence.  Let  it,  then,  be  as  intelligi- 
bly explained  what  is  meant  by  Person^  when  we 
say  that  there  are  three  Persons  in  one  God  or  one 
intelligent  Being, 

The  incomprehensibleness  of  an  object  is  no  rea- 
son why  we  should  use  terms  without  any  definite 
meaning.  God  is  an  incomprehensible  object ;  but 
in  using  the  term,  we  may  have  an  intelligible  and 
definite  meaning.  We  ought,  at  least,  to  have  so 
much  meaning  to  the  terms  we  use,  that  we  can  ex- 
plain our  own  meaning. 

By  some  good  writers  it  has  been  supposed,  that 
the  proposition  which  affirms  a  plurality  of  Persons 
in  one  intelligent  Being,  imfjlies  no  contradiction. 
But  I  would  ask,  how  is  it  known  that  it  does  not 
imply  a  contradiction  ?  Can  we  alfirm  any  thing  of  a 
proposition  any  further  than  we  understand  the 
teims  /  Let  the  terms  be  explained,  and  then  we 
stand  on  fair  ground  to  judge  whether  the  proposi- 
tion does  or  does  not  imply  a  contradiction.  But 
until  this  be  done,  it  would  be  very  improper,  at 
least  for  me,  to  affirm  any  thing  concerning  it,  one 
Wi^y  or  another.  Until  we  understand  the  term 
Person,  we  know  not  what  is  affirmed  in  the  pro- 
position. And  if  therr  be  no  definite  meaning  to 
the  term,  he  who  states  the  proposition  either  af- 


On  the   Unity  of  God.  33 

firms  nothing,  or  he  affirms  he  knows  not  what.  If 
we  think  to  give  instruction  by  using  terms  in  an 
indefinite  and  undefinable  sense,  we  most  certain- 
ly miss  our  aim.  For  no  person  can  be  enlighten- 
ed by  any  proposition  any  farther  than  he  under- 
stands the  meaning  of  the  terms.  U  then,  in  writ- 
ing on  divinity,  we  use  terms  which  are  undefina- 
ble in  our  own  application  of  them,  what  do  we 
better  than  to  darken  counsel  by  words  without 
knowledge  ? 

The  following  proposition  is  supposed  to  be 
apostolick,  "  There  are  three  that  bear  record  in 
heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost."  This  passage,  I  am  fully  satisfied,  as 
will  appear.  Letter  VI,  is  an  interpolation.  But 
even  should  it  be  supposed  genuine,  it  affords  no 
proof  of  the  Trinitarian  sentiment.  For  neither 
the  term  Persons,  nor  the  name  God,  is  to  be  found 
in  the  passage.  And  if  we  know  not  the  import 
of  the  term  Persons,  was  it  not  very  improper  for 
Trinitarians  to  insert  it  in  a  proposition  intended 
to  express  an  apostle's  meaning?  It  was  with  a 
view  to  render  this  proposition  more  explicit,  that 
the  term  Person  was  inserted.  But  however  inex- 
plicit or  indefinite  the  proposition  may  be,  as  it 
stands  in  the  Bible,  it  surely  could  not  be  amended 
by  inserting  a  word  without  meaning,  or  by  using 
a  definite  term  in  an  undefnable  sense. 

As  to  the  improper  use  of  the  term  Person,  I 
consider  myself  as  having  been  culpable  as  well 
as  others.  And  while  I  frankly  place  myself  on 
this  ground,  I  do  it  in  hope  that  the  preceding  re- 
marks will  not  be  viewed  as  designedly  reproach- 
ful to  any  class  of  Christians  or  divirjes. 

Thus,  sir,  I  have  attempted  to  establish  one 
point  in  favour  of  the  proposition,  that  the  Supreme 


34  On  the  Unity  of  God. 

Being,  or  self-existent  God,  is  only  one  Person.  If 
the  account  which  has  been  given  of  the  word 
Person  be  correct,  to  say  that  the  one  self-existent 
God  is  three  self  existent  Persons^  16  the  same  as 
to  say  that  the  self-existent  God  is  three  self-ex- 
istent intelligent  Beings.  And  if  there  be  a  pro- 
priety in  saying  that  the  one  God  is  but  one  su- 
preme Being,  there  can  be  no  propriety  in  saying 
that  the  one  God  is  three  self-existent  Persons. 
— But  there  are  still  other  considerations  which 
may  be  brought  into  view  in  subsequent  Letters. 


LETTER  III. 

The^  Scripture  use  of  pronouns  and  verbs  in  rela- 
tion to  God, 

REV.  SIR, 

Although  the  definition  which  has  been  given 
of  the  term  Person  should  be  adn^itted  as  cor- 
rect, still  it  may  be  thought  that  a  definition  may 
be  given  of  the  term  God,  which  Avill  render 
it  consistent  to  say  three  Persons  in  one  God. 
And  such  a  definition  has  been  given  by  Mr.  Wil- 
liam Jones  in  his  celebrated  performance  on  ''  The 
Catholick  doctrine  of  the  Trinity."  In  page  9, 
he  says,  **  The  word  God,  though  of  the  singular 
number,  IS  o( plural  comprehension*'^''  In  proof  of 
this  idea  he  has  written  a  distinct  chapter,  in  which 
he  has  evidenced  both  labour  and  ingenuity. 
And  it  will  be  admitted,  that  if,  in  the  Scriptures, 
the  term  God  be  intended  to  import  three  self- 
existent  Persons^  there  is  no  more  contradictiou  in 


On  the   Unity  of  God,  35 

affirming  that  there  are  three  Persons  in  one  God, 
than  there  would  he  in  affirming  tuai  there  are  three 
Persons  in  one  Council,  or  one  Senate,  or  one  Tri- 
umvirate. 

In  support  of  his  idea,  Mr.  Jones  has  not  only 
mentioned  some  7ioims  which  are  plural  in  the 
Hebrew,  which  are  in  English  translated  God  ; 
but  he  has  stated  that  there  are  dilao  pronouns  and 
verbs  of  the  plural  number  agreeir)g  with  the  term 
God.  And  it  must  be  acknowledged  that,  at  first 
view,  these  things  appear  much  in  favour  of  a  plu- 
rality of  Persons  in  God.  For  according  to  the 
established  principles  of  grammar,  pronouns  and 
verbs  should  agree  with  their  nouns  in  number.  It 
then  behooves  us  to  examine  the  subject  with  care 
and  with  candour. 

Mr.  Jones  has  exhibited  several  instances  in 
which,  in  our  translation,  the  pronouns  us  and 
OUR  are  used,  as  he  supposes,  as  proper  pronouns 
for  God  only,  and  as  denoting  a  plurality  of  Per- 
sons in  the  one  God. 

The  first  text  which  he  mentions  is  Gen.  i.  26. 
^'  And  GoD  said,  let  us  make  man  in  our  image, 
and  after  our  likeness." — In  reference  to  this  text, 
it  may  be  observed,  that  these  pronouns  do  not 
necessarily  imply  more  than  two  Persons,  nor  do 
they  necessarily  imply  that  both  of  them  were  self- 
exislent.  The  representation  is,  that  God  spake 
to  some  other  Person,  And  as  he  created  all  things 
by  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  was  probably  the 
Person  to  whom  God  spake.  And  all  the  plural 
pronouns  which  Mr.  Jones  has  relied  on  may  be 
accounted  for  in  the  same  manner. 

In  respect  to  the  plural  nou7i$  which  he  has  men- 
tioned, I  shall  only  say,  that  they  go  as  far  to  prove 
a  plurality  of  Gods,  as  they  do  to  prove  a  plurali- 
ty of!  self-existent  Persons, 


36  On  the   Unity  of  God. 

But  besides  nouns  'd.]v\  pronouns,  be  has  suggest- 
ed, that,  in  the  Hebrew,  several  plural  verbs  and 
adjectives  are  found  agreeing  with  the  noun  God. 
This  he  also  considers  as  evidence  thai  the  word 
God  impli»^s  a  plurality  of  Persons.  Being  wholly 
unacquainted  with  the  Hebrew  language,  I  cannot 
pretend  to  dispute  the  correctness  of  his  state- 
ments. Some  things,  however,  may  possibly  be 
suggested,  which  may  be  sufficient  ground  on 
which  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  his  inference. 

1.  I  think  we  have  no  evidence,  that  the  sacred 
writers  were  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  rules 
-of  grammar,  nor  that  the  Divine  Spirit,  by  which 
tliey  wrote,  secured  them  from  every  departure 
from  the  rules  of  grammar  in  the  construction  of 
sentences. — But, 

2.  If  it  were  certain  that  the  inspired  penmen 
never  deviated  from  the  rules  of  granimar,  it  would 
still  be  possible  that  as  many  as  Jive  or  six  mis- 
takes in  the  number  of  verbs,  might  be  made  in 
copying  the  Old  Testament  five  or  six  thousand 
times.  For  though  we  have  evidence  that  great 
care  was  taken  in  copying  the  Scriptures,  we  have 
no  evidence  that  scribes  were  infallible.  And  if, 
in  the  innumerable  copyings  of  the  Old  Testament 
prior  to  the  art  of  printing,  not  more  than  Jive  or 
six  verbs  were  changed  from  the  singular  to  the 
plural  number,  we  have  great  reason  to  acknow- 
ledge a  superintending  Providence. 

Thus,  sir,  1  have  endeavoured  candidly  to  reply 
to  Mr.  Jones's  arguments  from  plural  pronouns  and 
verbs.  Let  it  now  be  supposed,  that  instead  of 
Jive  or  six  plural  pronouns  of  doubtful  relation,  he 
had  found  Jive  or  six  thousand  plural  pronouns 
which  obviously  stand  as  substitutes  for  the  names 
God,  Lord  or  Jehovah  ;  would  not  his  argument 


On  the   Unity  of  God,  37 

have  been  at  least  a  thousand  times  more  forcible 
than  it  is  on  the  ground  he  has  produced  ?  Yea, 
let  it  be  supposed  that,  on  the  most  careful  exami- 
nation, he  had  found  in  the  Bible  only  Jive  or  six 
pronouns  for  God  of  the  singular  number,  and 
those,  too,  of  doubtful  import ;  and  that,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  had  found  all  the  pronouns  for 
God,  of  the  plural  number,  excepting  the  6ve  or 
six  doubtful  instances  ;  would  not  his  argument 
have  been  invincible  in  favour  of  a  plurality  of 
Persons  in  the  Godhead  ?  Would  any  man  of  sense, 
after  such  an  exhibition,  ever  have  called  in  ques- 
tion the  doctrine  of  three  self-existent  Persons  ? 
Confident  f  am,  that  such  an  argument  would  have 
had  more  weight  in  my  mind  than  all  the  argu- 
ments I  have  seen  or  heard  in  favour  of  th*t  doc- 
trine. 

Permit  me  then,  sir,  to  retort  the  argument  from 
the  use  oi  pronouns  and  verbs  in  the  Bible.  Ex- 
cepting those  doubtful  instances  of  plural  pronouns 
mentioned  by  Mr.  Jones,  are  not  the  pronouns  for 
God  uniformly  of  the  singular  number  ?  Instead 
o{  Jive  or  six  doubtful  cases,  do  we  not  findjive  or 
six  thousand  instances  in  which  personal  pronouns 
of  the  singular  number  are  unquestionably  used  as 
substitutes  for  ihe  nouns  God,  Lord  or  Jehovah  ? — 
And  setting  aside  Mr.  Jones's  exceptions,  do  we 
not  find  the  verbs,  agreeing  with  ihenounGoD,  uni- 
formly of  the  singular  number  P 

When  God  speaks  of  himself  in  the  first  person, 
he  uses  the  pronouns,  /,  My  or  Mine,  Me,  When 
he  is  addressed  in  the  second  Person,  the  pronouns 
are  Thou,  Thy  or  Thine,  Thee,  When  he  is  spok- 
en of  in  the  third  Person,  the  pronouns  are  He, 
His,  Him, — This,  you  must  be  sensible,  is  the 
general  and  uniform  use  of  the  pronouns  for  God, 
4 


38  On  the  Unity  of  God. 

in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New.  It  may  be 
added,  that  Myself,  Thyself  and  Himself  are  also 
used  as  pronouns  for  God. 

If  God  were  three  co-equal  Persons,  it  would 
be  very  natural  to  expect  that  we  should  find  ex- 
plicit evidence  of  this  in  the  manner  of  giving  the 
law,  and  in  the  prayers  of  saints.  But  when  the 
law  was  given  on  Mount  Sinai,  God  spake  in  the 
singular  number,  ''/  am  the  Lord  thy  God — thou 
shalt  have  no  other  Gods  before  me."  And  is  it 
not,  sir,  a  solemn  fact,  that  in  all  the  prayers 
throughout  the  Bible,  in  which  God  is  addressed, 
that  he  is  addressed  as  one  individual  Person  ? 

Moses,  David  and  Daniel,  may  be  considered  as 
well  acquainted  with  God.  Each  of  them  address- 
ed God  as  one  Person  only, 

Moses  said,  "  Yet  now  if  thou  wilt,  forgive  my 
sin  ;  and  if  not,  blot  me,  I  pray  thee,  out  of  thit 
book." 

David  said,  "  O  God,  to  whom  vengeance  be- 
longs, show  thyself," — noi  yourselves,  "  Lift  up 
thyself,  thou  Judge  of  the  earth." 

Daniel  said,  "  O  Lord,  hear;  O  Lord,  forgive  ; 
O  Lord,  hearken  and  do  ;  defer  not,  for  thine  own 
sake,  O  my  God  :  for  thy  city  and  thy  people 
are  called  by  thy  name," 

We  may  here  add,  that  Christ,  who  must  be  sup- 
posed to  be  better  acquainted  with  God  than  any 
ancient  prophet  or  any  modern  divine,  addressed 
the  Father  not  only  as  one  Person,  but  as  the  ''  only 
TRUE  God."  As  the  Son,  he  addressed  the  Father, 
and  in  his  prayer  he  had  these  words,  '^  And  this  is 
life  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee,  the  only 
true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  has 
sent." 

1  think,  sir,  I  may  say,  without  hazard,  that  there 


On  the  Unily  of  God,         *  39 

is  no  intimation  in  the  Bible  of  three  self-existent 
Persons  in  one  God,  either  in  the  manner  in  which 
Divine  commands  were  coiumiinicated,  or  in  the 
prayers  of  saints.  But  in  giving;  commands,  God 
uniformly  made  himself  known  as  one  individual 
Person;  and  as  to  an  individual  Person,  the  {)ro- 
phets  and  saints  addressed  their  prayers  to  God. 

Moreover,  in  all  the  remarkahle  manifestations 
of  himself  to  mankind,  God  made  himself  known 
as  one  Person  only. — When  he  appeared  to  Adam 
after  the  fall,  he  manifested  himself  as  one  Person. 
And  in  pronouncing  the  curse  upon  the  serpent,  as 
one  Person  he  spake,  "  /will  put  enmity  between 
thee  and  the  woman.  And  unto  the  woman  he 
said, /will  greatly  multiply  thy  sorrow,"  he. 

As  one  Person,  God  manifested  himself  to  Noah. 
*'  And  God  said  unto  Noah,  The  end  of  all  flesh  is 
come  up  before  me.  And  behold,  /,  even  /,  do 
bring  a  flood  upon  the  earth.  But  with  thee  will 
/establish  my  covenant." 

In  his  various  appearances  to  Abraham,  he  re- 
vealed himself  as  only  one  Person. — "•  /  am  thy 
shield  and  thy  exceeding  great  reward — /  will 
make  thy  seed  as  the  dust  of  the  earth — /am  the 
Almie;hty  God,  walk  before  me,  and  be  thou  per- 
fect." 

Similar  to  this,  was  the  style  and  manner  adopt- 
ed by  God  in  all  his  appearances  to  Abraham,  Isaac 
and  Jacob. 

In  all  the  manifestations  which  God  made  of 
himself  to  Moses  and  the  people  of  Israel,  he 
uniformly  represented  himself  as  one  Person.  And 
thus  he  represented  himself  in  his  communications 
to  the  Prophets.  It  may  also  be  observed,  that  in 
several  instances  God  adopted  forms  of  speech 
which  not  only  implied  a  denial  of  the  existence  of 


40  0?i  the  Unity  of  Go  (I, 

any  other  God,  but  also  of  the  existence  of  any 
other  SELF-EXISTENT  Person. — "  See  now  that/, 
even /am  he,  and  there  is  no  God  with  me  ;  / 
kill,  and  /  make  alive  ;  /  wound,  and  /  heal." 
Deut.  xxii.  39. — "  And  there  is  no  God  else  besides 
ME,  a  just  God  and  a  Saviour  ;  there  is  none  be- 
sides me.  Look  unto  ME,  and  be  ye  saved,  all  ye 
ends  of  the  earth  ;  for  /  am  God,  and  there  is  none 
else."  Isa.  xlv.  21,  22. — ''  Remember  the  former 
things  oT  old  ;  for  /  am  God,  and  there  is  none 
else  ;  /am  God,  and  there  is  none  like  me." 

When  God  reveals  himself  under  the  title  of  the 
Holy  OxNe,  or  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  he  repre- 
sents himself  not  only  as  one  God  but  as  ok& 
Person.  *'  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  Holy  One 
of  Israel,  and  his  Maker,  Ask  me  of  things  to  come 
concerning  my  sons  ;  and  concerning  the  work  of 
MY  hands,  command  ye  me." 

In  conformity  to  the  idea  which  God  gave  of 
himself,  as  being  one  Person  only,  all  the  sacred 
writers,  in  speaking  of  God,  speak  of  him  as  one 
Person,  by  using  a  personal  pronoun  of  the  singu- 
lar number,  as  He,  His^  Him,  together  witb  cor- 
responding verbs. 

The  Son  of  God,  in  the  course  of  his  ministry, 
spake  of  God  as  one  Person.  "  God  so  loved  the 
world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,"  &c. — 
And  the  apostles  uniformly  spake  of  God  as  one 
Person  only. — The  scribe  who  came  to  Christ, 
and  received  his  approbation  as  not  far  from  the 
kingdom  of  God,  in  the  course  of  the  conversation, 
and  in  reply  to  Christ,  said,  "There  is  one  God, 
and  fhere  is  none  other  but  He."  And  his  remark 
was  approved  by  Christ. 

Nouns  of  •'  plural  comprehension,"  such  as  Mr. 
Jones  supposes  the  word  God  to  be,  admit  the  ar- 


On  the  Unity  of  God.  41 

tide  the  before  them,  as  the  council,  the  senate  ; 
and  the  pronouns,  to  agree  with  them,  must  be 
either  neuter  pronouns  of  the  singular  number^  or 
masculine  pronouns  o{  ihe  plural  number.  Speak- 
ing of  a  council,  we  either  say,  //  adjourned,  or 
They  adjourned — Of  a  senate,  It  passed  an  act,  or 
They  passed  an  act.  We  do  not  say  of  a  council,  He 
adjourned  ;  nor  of  a  senate,  He  passed  an  act — 
Nor  does  a  senate  or  a  council,  speaking  in  the 
first  person,  say  /will. 

In  view  of  these  observations,  sir,  suffer  me  to 
present  to  your  notice  some  of  the  foregoing  pas- 
sages of  Scripture,  in  a  manner  conformable  to 
the  Athanasian  theory.  I  will  begin  with  the  pas- 
sage in  Genesis,  so  much  quoted  by  Athanasian 
writers,  and  connect  with  it  the  following  verse. 
The  passage,  to  agree  with  your  views,  shdiild 
read  thus  :...."  And  the  Gid  said.  Let  us  make  man 
in  our  image,  and  after  our  likeness.  So  the  God 
created  man  in  their  own  image,  and  after  their 
likeness  ;  in  the  image  of  the  God  created  they 
him." 

If  the  pronouns  us  and  our  are  pronouns  for  God 
only,  the  following  pronouns  should  be  also  of  the 
plural  number. 

Upon  the  same  principle,  the  first  commandment 
would  read  as  follows:,..."  Thou  shalt  have  no 
other  gods  before"  us. 

When  God  said,  ''/am  God,  and  there  is  none 
like  ME,"  would  not  your  theory  have  required  the 
followmg  form  ?....We  are  the  God,  and  there 
is  none  like  us. 

Would  not  the  words  of  Christ,  to  have  corres- 
ponded with  your  views,  have  stood  thus  ?...."  The 
God  so  loved  the  world,  that  they  gave  their  only 
begotten  Son,"  &c. 
4* 


42  On  the  Unity  of  God, 

The  words  of  the  scribe,  "  There  is  one  God, 
and  there  is  none  other  but  them,"  or  but  it. 

A  remarkable  variation  would  also  be  requisite 
in  the  passage  in  which  God  speaks  of  himself  as 
the  Holy  One.  "  Thus  sailh  the  Lord,  the  Holy 
One  of  Israel,  and  his  Maker,  Ask  us  of  things  to 
come,  concerning  our  sons  ;  and  concerning  the 
work  of  OUR  hands,  command  ye  us." 

I  would  further  suggest,  whether  another  varia- 
tion in  this  text  would  not  render  it  still  more  con- 
formable to  Mr.  Jones's  scheme,  even  to  the  lan- 
guage of  Athanasians  in  genera!  ?  ''  Thus  saith  the 
Lord,  the  Holy  three  of  Israel !"  This,  I  con- 
ceive, would  have  been  a  correct  expression  of 
your  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity.  Under 
the  term  Lord  or  Jehovah,  the  ?7/?i7?/ would  have 
been  implied  ;  and  under  the  terras  Holy  three. 
the  Trinity  would  have  been  expressed. 

Will  you,  sir,  be  pleased  now  to  consider  what  a 
great  and  surprising  change  must  be  made  through- 
out the  Bible,  in  respect  to  the  ^7'onown5  and  verbs 
agreeing  with  God,  to  have  the  lancruage  confor- 
mable to  the  Alhanasian  doctrine  ?  You  cannot  be 
insensible,  that  in  every  instance  in  which  a  per- 
sonal pronoun  of  the  singular  nuQ)ber  is  used  as  a 
substitute  for  the  noun  God,  something  is  implied 
contrary  to  that  doctrine.  Of  course,  a  very  great 
portion'  both  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New, 
is,  according  to  the  natural  import  of  language, 
opposed  to  that  theory.  Jf  the  doctrine  of  three 
self  existnnt  Persons  in  one  God  were  true,  and  of 
such  infinite  importance  as  seems  to  be  supposed 
by  our  good  brethren,  how  can  it  be  accounted  tor, 
that  God  himself,  and  all  the  sacred  writers,  should 
so  uniformly  adopt  such  forms  of  speech  as  would 


On  the  Unity  of  God.  43 

naturally  lead  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  one  self- 
existent  God  is  but  one  self-existent  Person  ? 

Mr.  Jones  has  indeed  suggested  the  idea,  that 
the  singular  pronouns  and  verbs  are  most  common- 
ly used  as  agreeing  with  God,  to  guard  mankind 
against  the  idea  of  more  Gods  than  one.  But  may 
I  not,  with  as  much  propriety,  suggest,  that  they 
are  thus  used  to  guard  us  against  the  idea  of  more 
than  one  self-existent  Person  ?  or  that  they  were 
thus  used,  that  in  case  any  should  adopt  the  opin- 
ion of  a  plurality  of  self-existent  Persons,  the 
errour  might  be  detected  by  the  current  and  uni- 
form language  of  Scripture  ? 

If  it  be  a  truth,  that  there  are  three  self-existent 
Persons  in  one  God,  it  is  doubtless  a  very  impor- 
tant truth.  Nor  is  it  to  be  admitted,  that  God 
should  constantly  speak  in  a  manner  which  tended 
to  impress  the  contrary  idea,  to  prevent  our  falling 
into  the  errour  of  a  plurality  of  Gods.  Had  it 
been  a  truth  that  there  is  but  one  God,  and  that 
this  term  is  of  "  plural  comprehension,"  compris- 
ing three  co-eternal  Persons,  it  would  certainly  have 
been  a  very  easy  thing  with  God  to  have  adopted 
language  conformable  to  both  parts  of  the  propo^ 
sition.  The  suggestion  of  Mr.  Jones  amounts  to 
nothing  less  than  this,  that  God  made  use  of  lan- 
guai^e"  which  was  calculated  to /eao?W5  into  one  er- 
rour^  lest  we  should/a//  into  another. 

Would  it  not,  sir,  shock  the  feelings  of  a  Chris- 
tian audience,  if  a  minister,  in  his  prayers  and 
preaching,  should  conform  his  language  to  the 
Athanasian  theory,  and  the  established  rules  of 
grammar?  But  if  the  theory  be  true,  ought  you  not 
to  adapt  your  current  language,  in  prayer  and 
preaching,  to  your  theory  ?  You  cannot  be  insen- 
sible, that  to  \x%e pronouns  and  verbs  of  the   singu- 


44  On  the  Unity  of  God, 

lar  number,  in  relation  to  God,  has  a  direct  ten- 
dency to  impress  the  minds  of  your  hearers  with 
the  idea  that  God  is  but  one  Person.  And  if  you 
believe  the  contrary,  ought  you  not  to  avoid  such 
forms  of  speech  as  naturally  tend  to  mislead  the 
minds  of  your  hearers  ?  You  will  probably  retort 
the  question,  and  ask,  why  1  did  not  avoid  such 
forms  of  speech  while  I  was  an  Athanasian  ?  I  an- 
swer, I  was  not  aware  of  the  inconsistency  be- 
tween my  common  forms  of  speech  and  the  theory 
I  had  adopted.  If  this  be  your  case,  you  may 
possibly  be  excused  in  respect  to  what  is  past ;  but 
what  will  you  do  in  time  to  come  ? 

To  evade  the  argument  resulting  from  the  use  of 
singular  pronouns  and  verbs,  some  will  probably 
say,  that  each  Person  in  the  Trinity  is  God,  and 
may  say  I  am  God-,  and  that  when  a  singular  pro- 
noun is  used  for  God,  one  Person  only  is  intended. 
In  reply,  the  following  questions  may  be  asked. 

1.  If  each  Person,  as  a  distinct  Person,  may  say 
/  am  God,  will  it  not  follow  that  there  are  as  many 
Gods  as  Persons  ? 

2.  If  there  be  three  seff-existent  and  co-equal 
Persons  in  God,  can  it  be  proper  for  either  of  the 
three  to  say  /am  God,  and  there  is  no  God  be- 
sides ME?  When  any  one  Person  adopts  this  lan- 
guage, does  he  not  naturally  exclude  every  oth'^ 
Person  from  the  dignity  which  he  claims  for  himsell  ? 
Suppose  three  Persons  to  be  united  as  co-equal  in 
one  government,  under  the  title  ol  King,  would  ii  be 
consistent  for  either  of  those  Persons  to  say  /am 
King,  and  there  is  no  King  besides  me  ?  If  any  one 
of  the  three  should  say  thus,  would  it  not  he  untrue 
in  itself,  and  a  contempt  of  the  other  Persons  ? 

Supposing  that  you  are  of  the  number  of  divines 
who  venture  to  tell  what  is  to  be  understood  by 


On  the  Unity  of  God,  4i> 

the  word  Person  as  applied  to  God,  and  that  by 
three  Persons  you  mean  ''  three  ^genis^"^^  I  would 
here  suggest  some  thoughts  for  your  consideration. 

Those  who  avow,  that,  by  three  Persons,  they 
understand  three  distinct  Jgents,  allow  to  each  of 
these  Agents  self-existence,  independence,  infinite 
intelligence,  and  almighty  power,  as  distinct  Per- 
sons. Of  course,  the  three  Persons  are  three 
infinite  Agents*  I  would  now  wish  to  be  informed, 
what  more  would  be  necessary  to  constitute  three 
infinite  Beings.  And  I  would  ask  you  seriously 
to  consider  whether  it  be  possible  for  you  to  form 
any  idea  of  three  infinite  Agents^  which  does  not 
involve  the  precise  idea  of  three  infinite  intelligent 
Beings, 

I  will  next  bring  into  view  a  text,  in  which  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  ex- 
hibited, that  you  may  see  to  what  the  representa- 
tion in  the  text  would  amount  on  your  hypothesis. 

The  text  we  find.  Acts  x.  38.  "  How  God  an- 
ointed Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  with  Power;  who  went  about  doing  good,  and 
healing  all  that  were  oppressed  of  the  devil;  for 
God  was  with  him." 

Here,  sir,  we  have  the  Trinity  fairly  exhibited. 
But  what  would  be  the  representalion,  if  by  the 
three  be  i[itended  three  infinite  Agents F  Would 
not  the  representation  be  distinctly  this,  that  the 
FIRST  infinite  Agent  gave  the  third  infinite 
Agent  to  enable  the  second  infinite  Agent  to 
ferform  miracles  ? 


46  On  the  Unity  of  God, 


LETTER  IV. 

The  language    of  good   Writers  in  favour  of  what 
they  mean  to  deny, 

REV.    SIR, 

For  the  support  of  the  doctrine,  that  the  self- 
existent  God  is  but  one  Person,  my  reliance  is 
placed  on  the  nnost  obvious  and  natural  import  of 
Scripture  language.  It  is,  however,  hoped,  that  it 
will  not  be  deemed  improper  oc  vnfnendly,  should 
1  avail  myself  of  the  reasonings,  concessions,  and 
language  of  Athanasian  writers,  for  a  further  illus- 
tration and  confirmation  of  what  I  esteem  to  be 
the  truth.  The  authors,  whose  writings  I  shall 
quote,  are,  in  my  opinion,  deservedly  in  high  esti- 
mation, as  learned,  discerning,  and  correct  writ- 
ers. And  no  author  will  be  quoted  or  named  with 
the  least  desire  to  provoke  controversy,  or  in  any 
respect  to  detract  from  his  reputation. 

I  would  now  solicit  your  attention  to  some  pas- 
sages from  Dr.  Hopkins.  In  his  chapter  on  the 
Unity  of  God,  and  the  Trinity,  to  prove  the  Unity 
of  God,  or  that  there  is  but  one  God,  he  has  made 
use  of  some  arguments,  which,  if  1  mistake  not, 
are  of  the  same  weight  against  the  doctrine  of  a 
plurality  of  self-existent  Persons,  that  they  are 
against  the  doctrine  of  a  plurality  of  self-existent 
Gods. — Thus  he  reasons. — 

"There  can  be  but  one  First  Cause  who  exists 
necessarily,  and  without  beginning  ;  for  there  can 
be  but  one  infinite  Being.  To  suppose  another, 
or  a  second,  necessarily  excludes  the  first;  and  to 
suppose  the  first,  necessarily  excludes  the  second, 
and   any  other  infinite   Being.     The  same  is  evi- 


On  the  JJnily  of  God.  47 

dent  from  the  consideration  of  the  Divine  perfec- 
tions. God  is  infinite  Power,  infinite  Wisdom. 
But  there  cannot  be  two  infinite  Wisdoms,  &;c.  for 
this  implies  a  contradiction." 

Yet,  sir,  your  theory  supposes  that  there  are 
three  distinct  self-existent  and  independent  Per- 
sons, which,  if  I  mistake  not,  as  fully  implies  three 
"  infinite  Wisdoms,"  &c.  as  the  supposition  of  three 
infinite  Beings. 

The  Doctor  proceeds...."  Moreover,  if  we  make 
the  impossible  supposition  that  there  are  two  or 
more  infinite  Beings,  they  must  be  perfectly  alike 
in  all  respects,  or  not.  If  not  perfectly  alike  and 
without  any  difference  in  any  respect,  then  one  or 
the  other  must  he  imperfect ;  for  absolute  infinite 
perfection  admits  of  no  variation  or  diflference  ;  so 
that  if  any  two  Beings  diflfer  in  any  respect,  they 
cannot  be  both  absolutely  perfect;  therefore  can- 
not both  be  God.  But  if  they  are  perfectly  alike 
in  every  respect  and  every  thing,  then  they  are  per- 
fectly one  and  the  same;  and  the  supposition  des- 
troys itself,  being  a  direct  contradiction." 

If  this  reasoning  be  conclusive,  will  it  not  ap- 
ply, in  the  most  direct  manner,  to  invalidate  the 
theory  of  three  self-existent  and  infinite  Persons  ^ 
The  three  Persons  must  be  perfectly  alike  in  all 
respects,  or  not.  If  nut  perfectly  alike,  one  or  the 
other  must  be  imperfect,  and  therefore  cannot  be 
God  :  "  But  if  perfectly  alike  in  every  respect,  then 
Ihey  are  perfectly  one  and  the  same." 

Those  who  admit  the  Doctor's  reasoning  as  con- 
clusive against  three  infinite  Beings,  must,  I  suspect, 
to  be  consistent,  reject  the  theory  of  three  infinite, 
independent  Persons. 

Dr.  Emmons,  in  his  Discourse  on  the  Trinity, 
has  made  this  concession. ...'*  Did   the   Scripture 


48  On  the  Unity  of  God. 

doctrine  of  the  Trinity  imply  that  three  Persons  are 
one  Person,  or  three  Gods  one  God,  it  would  ne- 
cessarily involve  a  contradiction." — Yet  this  cor- 
rect writer  has  adopted  forms  of  speech  which  evi- 
dently imply  that  one  Person  is  three  Persons, 
Such  are  the  following.  '*  God  can,  wi'h  propriety, 
sav,  I,  Thou,  and  He,  and  mean  only  Himself." — 
"  Nothing  short  of  three  distinct  Persons  in  the  one 
undivided  Deity,  can  rendor  it  [iroper  for  Him  to 
sper.k  ot  Himself  in  thf-  fir^t,  second,  and  third 
Persons,  I,  Thou,  and  H*."* — ''  And  so  there  is  a 
certain  something  in  the  Divine  Beini;,  which  ren- 
ders it  equally  necessary  that  He  should  exist  in 
THREE   Persons." 

In  these  passages,  He,  FIim,  and  Himself,  are 
used  as  pronouns  for  God  or  Deity.  And  each  of 
these  pronouns  strictly  conveys  the  idea  of  one 
Person  only.  Yet  the  Doctor  supposed  that  this 
one  He  or  Him,  might  speak  of  Himself  as  three 
distinct  Persons.  • 

Dr.  Spring,  in  his  Sermon  on  the  self-existence 
of  Christ,  gives  the  following  exhortation...."  Let 
us  then  not  deny  the  self-existence  of  God,  nor  the 
universality  of  His  existence,  nor  that  His  indivis- 
ible essence  comprises  three  distinct  Persons." 

By  the  pronoun  His,  God  is,  in  the  first  place, 
clearly  considered  as  but  one  Person  ;  yet  we  are 
fervently  exhorted  not  to  deny  that  "  His  indivisi- 
ble essence  comprises  three  distinct  Persons." 

Mr.  Jones  stands  on  similar  ground.  He  says, 
"  No  sensible  reason  can  be  given,  why  God  should 
speak  of  Himself  in  the  plural  number,  unless  He 
consists  of  more  Persons  than  one." 

♦  Astonishing !  Did  not  the  Doctor  know  that  it  was  a  common 
thing  for  a  jnan  to  speak  of  himself  in  the  first,  second  and  third 
person  ? 


On  the  Unity  of  God,  49 

And  thus  says  Dr.  Hopkins,  *'  If  there  be  a  God, 
He  does  exist  without  beginning  or  succession  ; 
and  this  is  as  much  above  our  comprehension,  as 
that  He  exists  in  three  Persons." 

To  what,  sir,  are  we  to  attribute  these  solecisms  ? 
Not  to  the  want  of  mental  energy  ;  nor  to  ihe  want 
of  piety  ;  nor  to  the  want  ofscientifick  or  gramma- 
tical knowledge.  But  these  worthy  men  had  been 
conversant  with  the  Bible,  and  from  that  source 
had  insensibly  formed  the  habit  of  usually  speaking 
of  God  as  only  one  Person  ;  but  this  being  contra- 
ry to  the  doctrine  which  they  wished  to  support, 
they  naturally  involved  inconsistency  in  their  forms 
of  speech. 

A  volume  might  be  filled  with  such  solecisms 
from  Athanasian  writers.  And  indeed,  sir,  I  very 
much  doubt  whether  yoii  ever  preached  a  gospel 
sermon,  or  ever  prayed  five  minutes,  without  using 
pronouns  in  direct  contradiction  to  your  theory. 


LETTER  V. 

The  Mystery  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity  unfolded. 

rev.  sir, 
In  a  former  letter,  I  observed  to  you,  that  Mr. 
Jones  considered  the  term  God  as  of  "plural  com- 
prehension." I  therefore  classed  the  noun  God 
with  otfTer  nouns  of  "  plural  comprehension,"  such 
as,  Council,  Senate^  Triumvirate,  &c. — But  since 
that  time  I  again  perused  Mr.  Jones's  performance, 
and  find  that  I  did  not  fully  comprehend  his  mean- 
ing. As  I  was  reading  his  remarks  on  1  Cor.  viii. 
&•.    "  But  to  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father," 


00  On  the  Unitij  of  God, 

1  noticed  this  idea,  "  the  one  God,  the  Father,  is  the 
name  of  a  nature  under  which  Christ,  as  God,  is 
connprehended."  1  was  at  first  wholly  at  a  loss 
for  his  meaning;  it  however  soon  occurred  to  me, 
that  he  considered  the  term  God,  in  this  case,  as  a 
general  or  generick  term,  comprehending  a  plurality 
of  Persons,  of  one  common  nature  ;  as  Man  is 
sometimes  used  for  all  mankind.  I  therefore  pur- 
sued the  inquiry,  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  his  real 
meaning.  When  I  came  to  the  part  of  his  book, 
entitled,  the  "Conclusion,"  my  apprehension  was 
fully  confirmed. 

In  page  80,  he  says,  "  That  the  Persons  of  God 
are  three  in  number,  precisely  distinguished,  on 
some  occasions,  by  the  personal  names  Father,  the 
Word  or  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit;  and  also  by  dif- 
ferent offices.  That  the  same  term  is  not  always 
peculiar  and  proper  to  the  same  person  ;  because 
the  words  God,  Lord,  Jehovah,  and  Father,  are 
sometimes  applied  to  one  Person  and  sometimes  to 
another ;  while  at  other  times  they  are  not  personal, 
but  general  names  of  the  Divine  nature,'^'' 

In  page  81,  he  observes,  "  There  can  be  no  real 
Unity  in  God  but  that  of  his  nature,  essence,  or  sub- 
stance,  all  of  which  are  synonymous  terms." 

That  the  three  Persons  are  of  the  same  nature  or 
essence,  he  considers  as  proved  on  this  ground,  "  Be- 
cause they  partake  in  common  of  the  name  Jeho' 
vah,  which  being  interpreted,  means  the  Divine  es- 
sence ;  and  what  it  signifies  in  one  Per^n  it  must 
also  signify  in  the  others,  as  truly  as  the  singular 
name  Adam,  in  its  appellative  capacity,  expresses 
the  common  nature  of  all  mankind.'^'' 

If  this  be  the  true  Athanasian  theory  of  the  Trin- 
ity, it  is  not  so  mysterious  as  has  been  generally 
supposed  J  and  I  suspect,  it  will  be  a  much  less  dif- 


On  the  Unity  of  God,  51 

fic.ult  task  to  pxplain  it,  than  it  will  to  reconcile  it 
to  the  saered  Scriptures. 

It  is  obvious,  from  the  passages  quoted,  that  Mr. 
Jones  considers  the  term  God,  as  sometimes  used, 
as  a  ge/rieral  op  generick  name,  comprising  a  plural- 
ity of  Persons  of  one  common  nature,  just  as  we 
use  the  term  Man,  as  compvWm^lhe  whole  species* 
And  he  also  supposes,  that  God  is  used  in  this 
sense  as  meaning;  the  Divine  nature^  when  it  is  said, 
"  But  to  us  there  is  but  one  God." 

And  as  he  has  given  us  plainly  to  understand, 
that  "there  can  be  no  real  Unity  in  God  but  that 
of  his  Tiftfwre,"  it  is  manifest  that,  on  this  theory, 
(he  Unity  of  God  is  the  same  as  the  unity  of  Man, 
Mr.  Jones  supposes,  that  the  three  Persons  in  the 
Deity  are  all  of  one  nature,  that  is,  of  a  Diviyie  na- 
ture. So  all  the  individual  Persons  of  the  human 
race  are,  in  the  same  sense,  07ie,  they  are  of  one  na- 
ture^  that  is,  human  nature. 

The  whole  mystery  of  the  Trinity  in  Urnty,  ac- 
cording; to  this  theory,  results  from  the  ambiguous 
use  of  the  terms  God,  Lord,  Jehovah,  &c.  these 
terms  being  "  sometimes  applied  to  one  Person,  and 
sometimes  to  another ;  while  at  other  times  they 
are  not  personal,  but  getieral  names,  of  the  Divine 
naturc,^^  When  it  is  said,  there  are  three  Persons 
in  one  God,  the  word  God  is  used  ''  as  the  name 
of  a  nature  ;"  and  the  import  is  simply  this,  that 
there  are  three  Persons  of  the  same  Divine  nature. 

On  this  theory  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity,  I  would 
suggest  the  following  inquiries  : — 

1.  Whether  there  can  be  any  reasonable  objec- 
tions to  the  proposition,  which  affirms  that  (here  are 
as  many  self-existent  Beings  as  there  aTe  sclfex- 
istent  Persons?  While  it  has  been  maintained  that 
there  are  three  sclf-exislent  Persons,   it  has   been 


55  On  the  Unily  of  God, 

affirmed  that  there  is  but  one  self-exislenf  Being, 
But  if  the  unity  is  no  more  than  a  unity  of  nature, 
why  may  not  each  of  the  Persons  be  considered  as 
a  distinct  intelligent  Being,  according  to  the  natu- 
ral import  of  the  word  Person  ?  When  the  word 
Man  is  used  "as  the  name  of  a  nature,"  it  com- 
prises many  intelligent  Beings  ;  as  many  as  it  does 
of  intelligent  Persons.  Why  is  it  not  thus  with  re- 
gard to  that  ORDER  of  Persons  included  under  the 
*' general  name"  God? 

2.  If  it  be  admitted,  that,  when  it  is  stated  in  the 
Scriptures  that  to  us  there  is  but  one  God,  that  the 
term  God  is  used  "  as  the  name  of  a  nature'^''  com- 
prising a  plurality  of  Persons,  what  evidence  can 
we  have  that  the  number  of  Persons  is  limited  to 
three  P  Why  may  not  that  order  of  persons,  which 
is  denominated  by  the  "  general  name"  God,  be 
as  great  as  the  number  characterized  by  the  gene- 
ral name  Man  ? — The  advocates  for  the  theory  wall 
doubtless  say,  that  the  Scriptures  mention  huiihres 
Persons;  but  do  the  Scriptures  say  that  there  are 
710  more  than  three  Persons  in  God  ?  The  Scrip- 
tures teach  us,  that  ^'  there  is  one  God,  and  that 
there  is  none  other  but  He."  And  if  such  decla- 
rations do  not  limit  the  number  of  self-existent  Per- 
sons, the  limits  are  not  ascertained  in  the  Bible  by 
any  thing  with  which  I  am  acquainted. 

3.  Will  it  not  follow,  from  this  hypothesis,  that 
in  the  sense  that  each  of  three  Persons  is  called 
God,  there  are  as  many  distinct  Gods  as  there  are 
distinct  persons  ? — When  the  term  God  is  used  as 
"the  name  of  a  nature,"  or  as  "a  general  name 
for  the  Divine  nature,^"^  it  is  easy  enough  to  see, 
that  in  this  sense  there  may  be  no  more  Gods  than 
one  ;  but  Mr.  Jones  does  not  suppose  that  it  is 
alzLHiys  used   in   this  sense  ;  he  supposes  the  same 


On  the   Unily  of  God.  53 

name  is  sometimes  used  personallu^  and  applied 
"  sometimes  to  one  of  the  three  Persons,  and  some- 
limes  to  another."  This  is  precisely  the  case  with 
the  word  Man.  It  is  sometimes  used  ''  as  the  name 
of  a  nature,"  comprehending  the  whole  species; 
yet  at  other  times  it  is  applied  in  a  personal  man- 
ner, sometimes  to  one  Person,  and  sometimes  to 
another.  John  is  a  man^  James  is  a  man^  Peter  is 
a  man^  &:c.  And  when  it  is  used  in  this  sense,  it 
admits  of  the  plural  number  ;  and  we  may  say  three 
men.,  or  three  hundred  men  ^  yea,  in  this  sense  there 
may  be  as  many  Mem?>  Persons— And  in  the  sense 
in  which  the  Father  is  GoJ,  and  Christ  is  God^  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  God,  why  are  there  not  as  many 
Gods  as  Persons  ?  It  is  a  clear  case,  that  if  each  of 
three  Persons  is  07ie  Man,  those  three  Persons  are 
three  Men,  And  analogy  will  teach  us,  that  if  there 
are  three  Divine  Persons,  each  of  whom  is  one  God, 
then  those  three  Persons  are  three  Gods. 

I  am  well  aware,  that  this  conclusion  is  not  ad- 
mitted by  our  Athanasian  brethren  ;  but  if  i(  do  not 
fairly  result  from  Mr.  Jones'  premises,  I  shall  re- 
joice to  see  the  fallacy  of  the  reasoning  detected. 

On  the  whole,  the  hypothesis  of  Mr.  Jones  pre- 
cludes the  necessity  of  any  distinction  between 
Perso?i  and  Being,  or  intelligent  Person  and  intelli- 
gent Being  ;  and  under  the  genenck  or  general  name 
God,  it  exhibits  an  order  of  supreme  and  self- 
existent  INTELLIGENCES,  to  cach  of  whom  the 
nauie  God  may  be  properly  applied;  the  number 
of  this  order  of  DIVINE  INTELLIGENCES  he  supposes 
to  be  but  THREE  ;  this,  however,  is  only  supposi- 
tion ;  there  is  no  certainty  in  the  case.  The  Divine 
nature  is  doubtless  as  extensive  as  human  nature; 
and  if  it  include  more  than  one  self-exisfent  Per- 
son, it  may  be  impossible  for  us  to  see  why  it  may 


54  On  the  Unity  of  God, 

not  comprise  as  many  Persons  as  human  nature. 
And  as  Mr.  Jones  supposed  that  not  only  the  word 
God,  but  also  the  word  Lord,  was  used  both  as  an 
''^appellative'^''  or  general  name,  and  also  in  a  per- 
sonal manner  as  applicable  to  each  of  the  Divine 
Persons,  the  hypothesis  seems  to  open  the  way  for 
the  re-admission  of"  Lords  many,  and  Gods  many,^^ 

In  speaking  of  the  three  Persons  in  the  Trinity, 
Dr.  Emmons  says,  "  There  is  a  certain  something 
in  the  Divine  nature  which  lays  a  proper  founda- 
tion for  these  personal  distinctions.  But  what  that 
SOMETHING  is.  Can  neither  be  described  nor  con- 
ceived. Here  lies  the  whole  mystery  of  the  Trini- 
ty." 

Had  the  good  Doctor  understandingly  and  be- 
lievingly  read  Mr.  Jones  on  the  subject,  he  would 
doubtless  have  been  able  to  describe  that  "  certain 
SOMETHING,"  as  wclI  as  Mr.  Jones  has  done.  For 
the  "  something"  appears  to  be  simply  this,  the 
Divine  nature,  like  human  nature,  may  comprise  a 
plurality  of  Persons. 

Thus  I  have  endeavoured  to  unfold  the  Athana- 
sian  mystery  of  the  Trinity  ;  the  business  of  recon* 
oiling  it  with  the  Bible,  I  shall  not  undertake. 


PART  11. 


on^'the  real  divinity  and  glory 
of  christ. 


LETTER  L 

Jesus  Christ  truly  the  Son  of  God. 

REV.   SIR, 

The  first  thing  which  I  proposed  to  establish 
was  this,  that  the  Supreme  Being,  or  self-exisfent 
God,  is  onli/  one  Person.  And  it  is  believed,  that, 
in  proof  of  this  proposition,  something  has  already 
been  done. 

My  second  proposition  is, 

That  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  the  Son  of  God. — If 
the  second  proposition  should  be  supported,  addi- 
tional evidence  will  appear  in  favour  of  the  first. 
For  according  to  your  theory,  Jesus  Christ  is  one 
of  the  three  self-existent  Persons,  and  is  personally 
the  self-existent  God.  But  should  it  appear  that 
he  is  personally  and  truly  the  Son  of  Gofl,  it  will 
also  appear  that  he  is  neither  the  self-existent  God 
nor  a  self-existent  Person.  For,  to  a  discerning 
and  unprejudiced  mind,  it  must  he  obvious,  that  it 
is  a  natural  impossibility  that  the  same  Person 
should  be  truly  the  self-existent  God  and  truly  the 
Son  of  the  self-existent  God.  So  far  as  the  natu- 
ral import  of  language  is  to  be  regarded,  the  terms, 


5G  On  the  real  Divinily 

a  self-existent  Son^  imply  a  real  and  palpable  con- 
tradiction. The  term  self-existent  is  perfectly  op- 
posed to  the  term  Son,  and  the  term  Son  is  perfectly 
opposed  to  self- existence.  If  there  be  any  teim  in 
our  language  which  naturally  implies  derived  exist- 
ence, the  term  Son  is  of  this  import.  To  affirm  that 
a  Person  is  a  derived  self  existent  Being  implies  no 
greater  contradiction  than  to  affirm  that  a  Person  is 
a  self  existent  Son,  And  toafSrm  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  personally  the  self-existent  God,  and  at  the  same 
time  truly  the  Son  of  God,  is  precisely  the  same 
contradiction  that  it  would  be  to  affirm  that  the 
Prince  of  Wales  is  truly  King  George  the  Third^dind 
also  truly  the  Son  of  King  George  the  Third. 

These  things  I  have  stated  on  the  ground  of  the 
natural  meaning  of  terms.  That  the  things  I  have 
stated  are  true,  according  to  the  natural  import  of 
language,  will  not,  it  is  believed,  be  dertied  by  any 
person  of  good  discernment  and  randour. 

The  proposition,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  the 
Son  of  God,  is  so  obvious  iii  its  natural  import, 
and  so  plainly  scriptural,  that  many  may  suppose  it 
requires  neither  explanation  nor  proof.  Yet  such  is 
the  state  of  things  in  the  Christian  world,  that  both 
explanation  and  proof  are  necessary.  For  al- 
though there  is  no  one  point  in  whic;«  Christians  are 
more  universally  agreed  than  in  calling  Christ  the 
Son  of  God,  there  is  scarcely  any  thing  about 
which  they  are  more  divided  than  that  of  the  in- 
tended import  of  those  terms.  But  amidst  the  va- 
riety of  opinions  which  have  been  formed  on  the 
subject,  the  natural  import  of  the  words  has  been 
pretty  uniformly  rejected  ;  and  almost  every  other 
possible  meaning  has  been  affixed  to  them,  in  pre- 
ference to  that  which  the  terms  naturally  excite. 
Indeed,  it  seems  to  have  been  generally  taken  for 


and  Glory  of  Christ.  57 

granted,  thai  it  is  impossible  with  God  to  have  a 
Son.  Athanasians  appear  to  have  taken  this  for 
granted  ;  and  finding  that  divine  titles,  divine  at- 
tributes, divine  works,  and  divine  honours,  are  as- 
cribed to  him  in  the  Scriptures,  they  have  set  it 
down  as  an  unqupsiionable  truth,  that  Christ  is  so 
far  from  being  the  Son  of  God,  in  the  natural  sense 
of  the  terms,  that  he  is  the  very  self-existent  God; 
yea,  that  very  God  of  whom  the  Scriptures  de- 
clare that  he  is  the  Son.  Other  denominations, 
taking  for  granted  the  same  principle,  have  pro- 
nounced the  Saviour  to  be  a  mere  creature^  more  or 
less  dignified  and  endued.  And  thus,  on  the  one 
hand  or  the  other,  almost  every  possible  grade  of 
intelligent  existence  and  dignity  has  been  allowed 
him,  excepting  that  which  is  naturally  imported  by 
his  title  the  Son  of  God. 

Two  ideas  are  naturally  suggested  by  the  title 
the  Son  of  God,  viz.  Divine  Origin  and  Divine 
Dignity. 

By  Divine  Origin,  I  do  not  mean  that  the  Son 
of  God  is  a  created  intelligent  being ;  but  a  Being 
who  properly  derived  his  existence  and  his  nature 
from  God.  It  has  not,  perhaps,  been  common,  to 
make  any  distinction  between  derived  existence  and 
created  existence;  but  in  the  present  case  the  dis- 
tinction appears  very  important.  Adam  was  a  crea- 
ted being  ;  Selh  derived  his  existence  from  the  cre- 
ated nature  of  Adam  ;  and  therefore  it  is  said 
*'  Adam  begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness."  And  as 
Seth  derived  his  existence  from  the  created  nature 
of  Adam,  so  it  is  believed,  that  the  only  begot- 
ten OF  THE  Father  derived  his  existence  from 
the  self-existent  nature  of  God.  In  this  sense  only 
do  I  mean  to  prove  that  the  Son  of  God  is  a  derin- 
ed  intelligence. 


58  On  the   real  Divinity 

The  hypothesis,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  the 
Son  of  God,  by  properly  deriving  his  existence 
and  nature  from  God,  will  probably,  by  many,  be 
pronounced  a  very  great  absurdiiy.  And  as,  in  my 
view,  very  much  is  depending  on  this  point,  you 
will  suffer  me  to  be  particular  in  the  exaininalion. 
That  the  terms  the  Son  of  God,  as  applied  to  Christ, 
do  most  naturally  denote  that  his  existence  andjm- 
ture  were  derived  from  God,  will,  it  is  believed,  be 
granted  by  all  judicious  and  impartial  inquirers. 
"And  it  does  not  discover  the  greatest  reverence  for 
the  Scriptures,  nor  the  greatest  sense  of  our  own 
fallibility,  hastily  to  reject,  as  absurd,  the  natural 
import  of  inspired  language.  If  there  be  any 
ground  on  which  the  hypothesis  may  be  pronoun- 
ced absurd,  it  must  be  found  either  in  the  works  or 
the  word  of  God.  But  what  do  we  find  in  the 
works  of  God,  by  which  it  may  appear,  that  it  is 
absurd  to  suppose  that  God  has  a  Son  who  has  tru- 
ly derived  his  existence  and  nature  from  the  Fath- 
er? In  examining  the  works  of  God,  we  iind  rea- 
son to  suppose  that  God  has  given  existence  to  va- 
rious tribes  of  beings,  with  natures  distinct  from 
his  own.  And  is  it  not  quite  as  difficult  to  con- 
ceive, that  God  should  give  existence  to  beings  by 
proper  creation,  with  natures  distinct  from  his  own, 
as  that  he  should  give  existence  to  a  Son  truly  de- 
riving his  nature  from  the  Father  ? 

We  also  find,  that  God  has  endued  the  various 
tribes  of  creatures  with  a  power  of  procreation,  by 
which  they  produce  offspring  in  their  own  likeness. 
Why  is  it  not  as  possible  that  God  should  possess 
the  power  of  producing  a  Son  in  his  own  likeness, 
or  with  his  own  nature,  as  that  he  should  be  able  to 
endue  his  creatures  with  such  a  power?  May  it 
sot,  ihenj  be  presumed,  that  no  shadow  of  evidence 


find  Glory  of  Christ,  59 

©an  be  produced  from  the  works  of  God,  to  invali- 
date the  hypothesis  that  Chnst,  as  the  Son  of  God, 
possesses  divine  nature  hy  derived  existence  ? 

What  then  saith  the  Scripture?  We  may,  in  re- 
ply to  this  question,  notice  several  things, 

1.  Dr.  Hopkins  has  said,  "The  Redeemer  is 
th«  Son  of  God  in  a  peculiar  and  appropriated  sense 
and  by  which  he  is  distinguished  from  every  other 
person  in  the  universe."  The  doctor  adds,  "  He 
is  mentioned  as  the  Son  of  God  more  than  an  hun- 
dred times  in  the  New  Testament;  and  the  Father 
of  Jesus  Christ  the  Son,  is  mentioned  above  two 
hundred  and  twenty  times." 

The  correctness  of  these  statements  is  not  doubt- 
ed ;  and  on  the  ground  of  them  I  may  say,  that  ac- 
cording to  the  natural  import  of  words,  Jesus  Christ 
is,  in  the  New  Testament,  more  than  three  hundred 
and  twenty  times  mentioned  as  a  derived  intel- 
ligence, an  intelligence  who  has  properly  derived 
his  existence  and  nature  from  God.  For  in  con- 
tradistinction to  angels  and  men,  and  to  all  who 
may  be  called  Sons  of  God  by  creation  or  adoption^ 
Jesus  Christ  is  definitively  called  the  Son  of  God. 

2.  It  is  to  be  observed,  that  several  epithets  are 
used  as  with  explicit  design  to  preclude  all  mis- 
take, and  to  give  us  unequivocal  evidence  that  Je- 
sus Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  in  the  most  strict 
sense  of  the  term.  He  is  emphatically  called  God's 
"  own  Son."  And  to  denote  that  God  has  no  other 
Son  in  the  sense  in  which  Christ  is  his  Son,  he  is 
called  God's  only  Son.  And  more  fully  to  ex- 
press the  idea  that  he,  and  he  only,  properly  de- 
rived his  existence  and  nature  from  God  he  is  call- 
ed '*  the  ONLY  begotten  Son  oI  God,"  "  the  on- 
hx  begotten  of  the  Father." 


60  On  the  real  Divinity 

I  would  here  ask,  whether  it  he  possible  to  find 
terms  which  would  more  ciearly  and  more  empha- 
tically express  the  very  thing  which  I  undertook 
to  prove  ?  If  no  further  evidence  could  be  produc- 
ed in  favour  of  the  hypothesis,  it  would  certainly 
require  something  very  substantial  and  positive  to 
invalidate  what  has  been  already  exhibited.  But 
additional  evidence  is  yet  to  come.  What  has 
been  produced,  is  from  the  general  and  current 
language  of  the  New  Testament.     We  may  add, 

3.  It  appears  to  have  been  one  particular  design 
of  the  miracles  which  were  wrought  by  Christ,  to 
prove  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  that,  as  the 
Son,  was  sent  of  the  Father  into  the  world. 

Christ  said  to  the  Jews,  "  Ye  sent  unto  John, 
and  he  bare  witness  of  the  truth.  But  1  have 
greater  witness  than  that  of  John  :  for  the  works 
which  the  Father  hath  given  me  to  finish,  the  same 
works  which  1  do,  bear  witness  of  me,  that  the 
Father  hath  sent  me."     John  v.  33—36. 

The  account  that  the  Jews  sent  unto  John,  and 
the  testimony  he  gave,  we  have  recorded  in  the  first 
chapter  of  the  same  gospel.  The  testimony  is 
this,  '^  But  he  that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water, 
the  same  said  unto  me.  Upon  whom  thou  shalt  see 
the  Spirit  descending  and  remaining  on  him,  the 
same  is  he  which  baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
And  I  saw  and  bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of 
God." 

This  was  the  truth  to  which  John  testified  ;  but 
Christ  stated,  that  the  works  which  he  did  were  of 
greater  weight  than  the  testimony  of  John.  And 
it  is  observable,  that,  as  it  was  one  design  of  Jiis 
miracles  to  prove  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  so 
this  conviction  was  produced  in  the  minds  of  many 
upon  seeing  the  miracles  which  he  performed. 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  61 

4.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  failhlul  and  true  Witness, 
and  he  repeatedly  affirmed,  "  I  am  the  Son  of  God ;" 
and  he  also  abundantly  affirmed  that  God  was  his 
Father. 

I  am  not  insensible,  that,  on  this  gronnd,  some 
have  supposed  that  Christ  meant  to  affirm  his  self- 
existence,  independence,  and  co-eternity  with  the 
Father.  But  surely  I  can  think  of  no  words  which 
would  have  been  less  calculated  to  impress  such  an 
idea  on  an  unprejudiced  mind.  And  had  it  been 
his  design  to  affirm  his  self-existence,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  mislead  the  minds  of  his  hearers,  I 
know  not  of  any  language  which  would  have  been 
more  adapted  to  such  a  purpose.  Would  any  per- 
son of  common  discernment  and  common  honesty 
ever  think  of  asserting  that  he  is  General  Wash- 
ington, or  that  he  personally  existed  as  early  as 
General  Washington,  by  saying,  I  am  the  Son  of 
General  Washington,  and  General  Washington  is 
my  Father  ? — But  if  Christ  meant  to  assert  that 
he  derived  his  existence  and  his  nature  from  God 
as  a  Son  from  a  Father,  what  language  could 
have  been  more  to  his  purpose  than  that  which  he 
adopted  ? 

5.  The   awful    display  of  Divine   majesty   and 
power  which  were  concomitants  of  the  crucifixion 
of  Christ,   produced  a  conviction  in   the   minds  of 
the  centurion  and  others  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of 
God.     "Now  when  the  centurian,    and   they  that 
were   with  him,   watching   Jesus,  saw   the  earth- 
quake, and  those  things  that  were  done,  they  fear- 
ed greatly,  saying,  Truly  this  was  the  Son  of  God." 
And  according  to  the  opinion  of  St.  Paul,   he  was 
"declared   to  be  the  Son  of  God,  with  power,  ac- 
cording to  the  spirit  of  holiness,    by  the  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead." — Rom.  i.  4. 
6 


62  On  the  real  Divinity 

6,  That  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  was  a 
principal  article  of  primitive  Christian  faith,  and  a 
principal  doctrine  ot  apo.-^t<jlic  preaching. 

Christ  questioned  his  ciiscipies  thus  :  '*  Whom  do 
men  say  that  1,  ihe  Son  of  man.,  am?  They  said, 
Some  say  thou  art  John  the  Baptist,  some  Elias, 
and  others  Jeremias,  or  one  of  the  prophets.  He 
saith  unto  them.  But  whom  say  ye  that  J  am  ?  And 
Simon  Peter  answered  and  said,  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  livixxg  God." 

Nathaniel,  on  becoming  acquainted  with  Christ, 
said  unto  him,  "  Rahbi,  Thou  an  the  Son  of  God." 

When  Christ  questioned  Martha  respecting  her 
faith  in  him,  she  replied,  *'  1  believe  that  thou  art 
the  Christ,  the  Son  ol  God." 

After  the  ascension,  uhen  the  eunuch  manifested 
a  desire  to  be  baptized,  Philip  answered,  "  Ii  thou 
believcst  with  all  thine  heait,  thou  mayest."  The 
eunuch  then  exhibited  his  confession  of  faith  :  '*■  I 
believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God."  And 
on  the  ground  of  this  profession  he  uas  baptized. 

Saint  Paul  having  been  converted  and  commis- 
sioned for  the  gospel  ministry,  "straightway  he 
preached  Christ  in  the  synagogues,  that  he  is  the 
Son  of  God." 

And  the  same  doctrine  he  abundantly  inculcated 
in  his  epistles. 

Dr.  Hopkins  has  noticed,  that  the  apostle  John 
"  mentioned  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  fifty  times — 
and  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Son,  more  than 
one  hundred  and  thirty  times."  in  his  gospel  and 
epistles.  And  this  same  apostle  has  spoken  of 
faith  in  Christ,  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God,  as  though 
it  were  indeed  of  the  highest  importance.  ''  Who- 
soever shall  confess  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God, 


and  dlory  of  Christ,  63 

God  dwclleth  in  him,  and  he  in  God.  He  thalbe- 
lirveth  on  the  Son  of  God,  hath  the  witness  in  him- 
self. Whosoever  denieih  the  Son,  the  same  hath 
not  the  Father.  Who  is  he  that  overcometh  the 
workl,  but  he  that  believeth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  God  ?" 

Here  1  would  take  the  liberty  to  propose  a  few 
questions.  Js  hclievin<i;  that  Jesus  Christ  is  a  mere 
mail  or  a  mere  creature^  believing  that  he  is  the 
Son  of  God,  God's  own  Son,  the  only  begotten 
of  the  Father  ?  Again,  Is  believing  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  personally  the  self  existent  God,  believing 
that  he  is  truly  the  Son  of  God  ?  Does  it  not  ap- 
pear, that  believing  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  Son 
of  God,  was  the  orthodox  faith  in  the  first  age  of 
Christianity  ?  But  is  this  the  faith  of  those  who  call 
themselves  tlie  orthodox  at  the  present  day  ? 

To  believe  that  Q\\y\sI\?>  personally  \he  self -exis- 
tent God,  and  to  believe  thai  Christ  is  truly  the  Son 
OF  God,  are,  in  my  view,  very  distinct  things  ;  and 
I  cannot  but  be  amazed  that  ideas  so  perfectly  dis- 
titict  should  ever  have  been  admitted  as  one  and 
the  same. 

7.  The  self-existent  and  supreme  Majesty,  by 
an  audible  voice  from  heaven,  did  repeatedly  con- 
firm  the  truth  which  I  have  aimed  to  support. 

*'  And  Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized,  went  up 
straightway  out  of  the  water  :  and  lo,  the  heavens 
were  opened  unto  him,  and  he  saw  the  Spirit  of 
God  descending  like  a  dove,  and  lighting  upon  him  : 
and  lo !  a  voice  from  heaven,  saying,  This  is  my 
beloved  Son,  in  whom  1  am  well  pleased." 

Again,  at  the  time  of  the  transfiguration.  "  Be- 
hold, a  bright  cloud  overshadowed  them  ;  and,  be- 
hold, a  voice  out  of  the  cloud,  which  said,   This  is 


64  On  the  real  Divinity 

MY  BELOVED  SoN,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased ;  hear 
ye  him." 

Is  it  possible,  sir,  that  any  man  can  attend  for  a 
moment  to  the  natural  import  ol  these  words  trom 
heaven,  and  then  believe  that  God  meant  to  be 
understood  as  saying,  This  Person,  who  has  been 
baptized,  and  transfigured,  is  the  self-existent  God, 
co-eternal  with  myself,  and  the  same  Being? 

8.  The  avowed  design  of  St.  John,  in  writing 
the  history  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  a  proof  that  in  his 
view  Jesus  was  truly  the  Son  of  God.  At  the 
close  of  the  20th  chapter,  he  says,  "And  many 
other  signs  truly  did  Jesus  in  the  presence  of  his 
disciples,  which  are  not  written  in  this  book.  But 
these  are  written  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus 
is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  that  believing, 
ye  might  have  life  through  his  name." 

You  will  probably  urge,  that  in  the  very  first 
verse  of  his  gospel,  John  says,  "  The  Word  was 
God."  This  is  true  ;  and  it  is  also  true,  that  in  the 
same  verse,  and  in  the  next,  he  says,  '•  The  Word 
was  w^TH  God."  The  God  whom  the  Word  was 
wilK  was  doubtless  one  God ^  and  unless  we  are  to 
suppose  that  John  meant  to  afl[irm  a  plurality  of 
self  existent  Gods,  he  did  not  mean  to  affirm  that 
the  AVoRD  was  God  in  a  sense  which  implied  per- 
sonal self- existence.  Besides,  the  title,  the  Word, 
or  the  Word  of  God,  probably  denotes  that  the 
Son  was  the  Medium  of  Divine  manifestation  j  and 
hence  we  may  easily  infer,  that  it  was  on  the  ground 
of  a  constituted  character  that  the  Son  is  call- 
ed God.  John  proceeds  to  say,  that  all  things 
were  made  by  him;  and  Paul  tells  us  hoic — "that 
God  created  all  things  by  Jesus  Christ." 

In  some  future  Letters,  I  shall  more  particularly 
show  in  what  sense  Christ   is  called  God.     But  I 


and  Glory  of  Christ.  &3 

may  here  observe,  that  the  general  current  of 
John's  gospel  corresponds  with  what  he  says  was 
hU  object  in  writing,  viz.  ^' That  ye  might  be- 
lieve that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God; 
and  that  believing,  ye  might  have  life  through  his 
name." 

In  my  next  Letter,  you  may  expect  still  further 
evidence  that  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  the  Son  of  God. 


LETTER  IL 

Mditional  evidence  thai  Christ  is  truly  the  Son  of 
God. 

REV.    SIR, 

As  introdiictory  to  the  arguments  which  I  am 
^bout  to  urge,  1  would  suggest  to  your  mind  the 
following  suppositions. 

1.  Suppose  that  God,  in  giving  the  ten  command- 
ments on  tables  of  stone,  instead  of  writing  the 
word  sabbath-day  in  the  fourth  commandment,  had 
left  a  blank ;  and  in  giving  the  fifth,  he  left  a  blank 
instead  of  writing  the  terms  father  and  mother. 

2.  Suppose  he  wrote  a  second  time,  and  filled 
tip  those  blanks  with  characters  or  words  which  had 
never  before  been  seen  or  heanl  by  men. 

3.  Suppose  he  wrote  a  third  time,  and  instead 
of  leaving  blanks  for  those  words,  or  filling  them 
with  unknown  characters  or  terms,  he,  for  sabbath- 
day,  wrote  birth-day  :  and  instead  oi  father  and 
mother^  wrote  son  and  daughter  :  suppose  also,  that 
these  words  had  never  been  understood  by  men  to 

6* 


6Q  On  the  real  Divinity 

mean  any  thing  different  from  their  common  ac- 
ceptation at  the  present  day. 

Permit  me  now  to  ask,  whether  cither  of  these 
modes  of  writing  those  commands  could  be  consi- 
dered as  a  revelation  of  the  Divine  Will?  And 
would  not  the  mode  of  writing  birth-day  for  sah- 
bath-day,  and  son  and  daughter  for  father  and 
mother,  be  as  likely  to  mislead  the  minds  of  men, 
as  writing  in  unknown  characters,  or  even  as  leav- 
ing blank  spaces  to  be  filled  up  by  conjecture  ? 

But  what,  you  may  ask,  is  the  object  of  these  ex- 
traordinary statements  ?  My  object,  sir,  is  this,  to 
evince,  that  in  his  communications  to  us,  God  must 
make  use  of  language  in  a  sense  which  agrees  with 
some  analogy,  or  his  communications  can  be  of  no 
use  to  mankind,  any  more  than  unknown  characters, 
or  blanks  to  be  filled  by  conjecture. 

In  a  connection  as  deeply  interesting  as  that  of 
giving  the  law,  God  has  made  use  of  the  terms  the 
Son  of  God,  MY  Son,  God's  own  Son,  the  only 
BEGOTTEN  SoN  of  God,  He  has  represented  his 
love  to  us  as  being  exeedingly  great,  on  the  fol- 
lowing ground,  "  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he 
gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  be- 
lieveth  in  him,  should  not  perish,  but  have  ever- 
lasting life."  "  He  that  spared  not  his  own  Son, 
but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all." 

Such,  you  know,  is  the  common  representation 
in  the  New  Testament.  And  being  well  acquaint- 
ed with  the  natural  import  of  the  terms  an  own 
Son,  an  only  begotten  Son;  and  having  an  idea 
of  the  love  of  a  father  to  an  own  and  only  son  ; 
the  scriptural  representations  of  the  love  of  God 
towards  us  become  deeply  interesting  and  affect- 
ing. 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  67 

But  the  Athanasian  theory  represents  the  Son  of 
God  as  personally  the  self-existent  God,  and  the 
very  same  Being  of  whom  he  is  abundantly  decla- 
red to  be  the  Son.  And  on  this  ground,  th€  term 
Son  is  used  in  a  sense  foreign  to  every  analogy 
with  which  the  human  mind  is  acquainted ;  as  fo- 
reign as  it  would  be  to  use  birth-day  for  sabbath- 
day,  or  son  and  daughter  for  father  and  mother. 
On  this  ground,  the  representations  of  God's  love, 
and  the  scheme  of  salvation,  are  involved  in  unin- 
telligible metaphor;  and  we  need  an  inspired  Dan- 
iel to  interpret  the  import  of  the  term  Son,  as  much 
as  Belshazzar  did  to  interpret  the  enigmatical  hand 
writing  on  the  wall.  And  until  this  interpretation 
be  given,  we  have  no  definite  ground  on  which  to 
estimate  the  love  of  God  in  the  atonement  made 
for  the  sins  of  the  world. 

What  has  been  now  exhibited,  is  viewed  as  a 
very  weighty  argument  against  your  theory,  and  in 
favour  of  the  hypothesis  that  Jesus  Christ  is  truly 
the  Son  of  God. 

But  there  is  another  argument  which,  if  possible, 
is  still  more  weighty,  to  which  we  may  now  at- 
tend. You  cannot  be  insensible,  that  it  is  plainly 
and  abundantly  represented  in  the  Scriptures,  that 
the  Son  of  God  did  really  and  personally  suffer  and 
die  ft)r  us.  And  that  on  this  ground,  both  the  love 
of  God  and  the  love  of  his  Son  are  represented  as 
having  been  manifested  in  a  very  extraordinary 
manner.  And  if  the  Son  of  God  be  truly  the  Son 
of  God,  a  derived  intelligence,  these  representa- 
tions may  be  strictly  and  affectingly  true.  For  on 
this  hypothesis,  the  Son  of  God  may  be  the  same 
intelligent  Being  as  the  soul  of  the  Man  Christ  Je- 
sus who  suffered  on  the  cross. 


68  On  the  real  Divinity 

But  your  theory  will  not,  I  suspect,  be  found  to 
admit,  or  support,  any  thing  more  than  the  shadow 
of  the  suffering  and  death  of  tlie  Son  of  God. 

Writt  rs  and  preachers  on  your  side  of  the  ques- 
tion, do  indeed,  often  speak  of  the  abasement,  the 
sufferings,  and  death,  of  the  Son  of  God,  as  though 
they  believed  these  things  to  be  affecting  realities. 
But,  after  all,  what  is  the  amount  ot  these  represen- 
tations, upon  your  hypothesis  ?  You  do  not  con- 
ceive that  the  Son  of  God  became  united  to  flesh 
Bnd  blood  as  the  soul  of  Jesus  Christ.  So  far 
from  this,  you  suppose  the  Son  of  God  was  person- 
ally the  self-exisient  God ;  and  instead  of  becom- 
ing the  soul  of  a  human  body,  you  supj^ose  he  be- 
came mysteriously  united  to  a  proper  man,  who,  as 
distinct  from  the  Son  of  God,  had  a  true  body  and 
reasonable  soul.  And  I  think,  sir,  it  will  be  found, 
ihat  on  this  Man  your  theory  lays  the  iniquities  of 
us  all ;-  that  this  Ma7i,  and  not  the  Son  of  God.  en- 
dured the  stripes  by  which  we  have  healing.  For 
while  you  maintain  that  the  Son  was  personally 
the  only  living  and  true  God,  you  very  consistent- 
ly affirm  that  *'  he  did  not  suffer  in  th€  least  in  his 
Divine  nature,  butalt(  gether  in  his  human  nature." 
And  what  is  this  but  affirming  that  he  did  not  suf- 
fer at  all  as  the  Son  of  God,  but  only  the  Man  Je- 
sus suffered,  to  whom  the  Son  was  united  ?  As,  on 
the  Aihanasian  hvpoihesis,  the  Man  Christ  Jesus 
and  the  human  nature  are  the  same,  so  the  Son  or 
-self  existent  God  and  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ 
are  the  same.  You  suppose  the  Son  as  incapable 
of  suffering  as  the  Father,  and  t}»at  he  did  not  in 
reality  suffer  on  the  cross  any  more  than  the  Fath- 
er did;  nor  any  more  than  either  of  them  suffered 
while  Cranmer  was  burning  at  the   stake.     How 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  69 

then  does  it  appear,  that  "God  spared  not  his  own 
Son  .^" 

You  will  probably  plead,  that  the  Man  Jesus  uas 
united  to  the  Person  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  ihat 
Person  suffered  in  his  human  nature.  But,  sir,  as 
you  predicate  personality  on  th«  Son  or  Divine  na- 
ture^ and  do  not  allow  personality  to  the  human  na- 
ture, it  will,  I  suspect,  be  difficult  for  you  to  prove- 
that  any  Person  suffered  on  the  cross  :  tor  the  suf- 
ferings tell  simply  on  a  nature  (o  which  you  do  not 
allow  personality.  As,  in  your  view,  the  Son  was 
the  self-existent  God,  and  could  not  suffer  in  his 
Divine  nature,  he  could  not  suffer  in  a7iy  nature. 
The  man  was  only  an  appendage  to  his  Person, 
mysteriously  connected  ;  and  yet  so  far  was  the 
union  from  being  very  intimate  or  essential,  that  the 
appendage  or  the  J\Ian  might  suffer  the  severest  agon- 
ies, and  the  Son  or  real  Person  be  at  the  same  time 
in  a  state  of  infinite  ielicity. 

Abraham's  offering  his  son  Isaac,  has  long  been 
considered  as  typical  of  the  conduct  of  God  in  giv- 
ing his  Son  to  die  for  us.  Suppose  we  should  add 
to  the  scriptural  account  the  following  ideas — That 
Abraham  knew  beforehand  that  his  son  was  inca- 
pable of  suffering,  and  that  all  the  sufferings  would 
fall  on  another  man,  to  whom  his  son  was  mysteri- 
ously united  ;  and  that  Isaac  also  understood  the 
matter  in  the  same  light  when  he  consented  to  be 
bound  and  laid  upon  the  altar.  Would  not  this  ad- 
ditional account,  if  believed,  depreciate,  in  our  es- 
timation, the  conduct  of  Abraham  and  Isaac,  at  the 
rate  of  ninety-nine  per  cent.  ? 

This  illustration  may  serve  to  show  how  much 
your  hypothesis,  when  understood,  tends  to  lower 
down  our  ideas  of  the  greatness  of  the  love  of  God 


70  On  the  real  Divinity 

in  giving  his  Son  to  die  for  us;  and  also  the  love 
and  submission  of  the  Son  in  consenting  to  make 
his  life  an  offering  for  our  sin. — I  would,  however, 
by  no  means  intimate,  that  you  and  others,  view 
ihe  love  of  God  in  this  depreciated  light.  F'or  I 
think  it  probable  that  it  is  with  you,  as  1  am  sensi- 
ble it  was  with  myself — the  plain  representations 
of  Scripture,  by  the  help  of  analogy,  superseded 
the  force  of  theory. 

It  has  been,  and  I  think  justly,  supposed,  that 
the  dignity  of  the  Son  ol  God  gave  value  to  the 
sufferings  of  the  cross.  And  il"  we  consider  the 
Son  of  God  to  be  what  his  title  imports,  a  derived 
hitelligence  of  Divine  origin  and  dignity,  the  one 
by  whom  God  created  the  world  ;  if  we  consider 
this  self-same  Intelligence  as  personally  and  really 
suffering  the  death  of  the  cross,  we  may  perceive 
something,  in  view  of  which  we  may  vvell  exclaim, 
*'  Behold,  what  manner  of  love  !" 

But  if  the  sufferings  of  the  cross  did  not  really 
fall  on  that  very  Son,  who  had  sustained  pre-exis- 
tent  glory  in  the  ''  form  of  God,"  but  on  a  man  who 
had  existed  less  than  forty  years,  who  had  acted 
in  public  character  not  more  than  four  or  five  ;  how 
sn^all  the  degree  of  condescension  on  the  part  of 
the  sufferer,  how  small  the  display  of  the  love  of 
God,  and  of  what  diminished  value  are  the  sufferings 
of  the  cross!  In  the  Assembly's  Catechism  we  are 
taughl,  that  "Christ's  humiliation  consisted  in  his 
being  born,  ami  'hat  in  a  low  condition,  being  made 
under  the  law  ;  undere;oing  the  miseries  of  this  life, 
the  wrath  of  God,  and  the  cursed  death  of  the 
cross;  in  being  buried,  and  continuing  under  the 
power  of  death  for  a  time.'" 

Yet  this  same  Catechism  teaches  us  to  believe, 
that  Jesus  Christ   was   personally  the  self-existent 


and  Glory  of  Christ.  71 

God.  I  will  then  ask,  whether  there  be  one  parti- 
cular of  what  is  said  respecting  the  humiliaiion  of 
Christ,  which  can  possible/  be  true?  Was  the  self- 
existent  G  )d  ever  born  ?  Was  he  ever  in  a  low 
condition  ?  Wds  he  ever  made  under  the  law  ?  Did 
he  ever  suffer  the  wrath  of  God,  or  the  cursed 
death  of  the  cross  ?  Was  God  ever  buried  ? — It  the 
self-existent  God  has  not  passed  through  such 
scenes,  then  the  Son  of  God  has  not,  according  to 
your  doctrine  respecting  the  JSon.  ThcTcfore,  ac- 
cording to  your  theory,  all  the  abasement^  which 
can  be  snp[»orted,  falls  on  the  Man  to  which  the 
Son  was  united  :  And  this  Man  you  suppose  had 
no  existence  until  he  was  conceived  in  the  womb 
of  (he  virgin  Mary;  of  course,  he  had  no  glory  to 
leave,  or  lay  aside,  when  he  came  into  the  world. 
As  he  never  ha(i  been  rich,  it  was  impossible  for 
hitn  to  become  poor  for  our  sakes.  He  had  no  op- 
porrunity  to  say,  "  Lo,  1  come  to  do  thy  will,  O 
God  ;"  and  so  far  as  his  humiliation  consisted  in 
"  bf'ing  born,  and  that  in  a  low  condition,"  there 
was  nothing  voluntary  in  if  ;  and  it  could  be  no 
evidence  of  any  love  or  condescension  ir»  him. 

To  make  out  your  theory  of  the  humiliation  and 
abasement  of  the  Son  of  God,  you  have  to  take 
into  view  two  distinct  intelligent  Beings  ;  one  of 
which  you  affiim  to  be  the  self-existent  God,  and 
the  other  a  proper  Man.  This  God,  or  Son  of 
God,  you  find  had  been  in  a  state  of  pre-existent 
dignity  and  glory  ;  and  he,  as  you  suppose,  was 
united  mysteriously  to  a  man  ;  this  Man  was  born 
in  low  circumstances,  endured  the  miseries  of  ihis 
life,  and  suffered  death  on  the  cross  ;  and  bv  vir- 
tue of  his  union  to  the  Son  of  God,  he  was  enabled 
to  bear  a  vastly  greater  weight  of  suffering  than  he 
could  otherwise  have  endured. 


72  On  the  real  Divinity 

But,  sir,  is  this  all  ihai  is  intended  by  God's 
SPARING  NOT  HIS  ov/N  SoN  ?  Is  this  the  waj  in 
which  the  Son  of  God  bare  our  sins  in  his  own  bo- 
dy on  the  tree  ?  What,  sir,  was  the  real  condition 
of  the  Son  of  God,  the  self-existent  God,  from  the 
birth  of  the  Man  Jesus  till  this  Man  rose  again 
from  the  dead?  According  to  your  theory,  the  Son 
of  God,  during  the  whole  of  that  f)eriod,  was  in  a 
state  of  infinite  glory  and  felicity,  and  as  incapa- 
ble of  .suffering  the  agonies  of  death  as  the  Father. 

How  then  can  it  be  true,  that  "  Though  a  Son, 
yet  learned  he  obedience  by  the  things  which  he 
SUFFERED.^  As  it  Tcspccts  the  real  character  o{ 
the  SUFFERING  Saviour,  what  is  your  theory  better 
ihs^n  Socinianism  enveloped  in  mystery  ? 


LETTER  III. 

Ko  absurdity  in  the  hypothesis  that  Christ  is  truly 
the  Son  of  God. 

REV.    sir, 

What  has  been  exhibited  in  the  preceding  Let- 
ters, it  is  hoped,  will  be  sutficient  to  satisfy  impar- 
tial minds  that  the  Scriptures  afford  abundant  evi- 
dence that  Jesus  Christ  is  tridy  the  Son  of  God. 
But  a  contrary  belief  has  been  so  long  and  so  gen- 
erally prevalent,  that  it  may  be  necessary  to  say 
something  farther  on  the  subject,  with  a  view  to 
show  that  the  natural  import  of  the  terms  the  Son 
of  God^  or  God's  owji  Sun,  implies  no  contradiction 
or  absurdity. 

That  God  is  a  self-existent  Being,  is  acknow- 
ledged by  all  Christians ;  and  i  shall  freely  admit. 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  73 

that  it  is  impossible  with  God  to  beget  or  produce 
a  SELF-EXISTENT  SoN.  But  what  have  we  to  do 
with  the  mode  of  God's  existence,  in  determining 
whether  it  be  possible  with  him  to  produce  a  Son  ? 
What  have  we  to  do  with  the  mode  of  Adam's  ex- 
istence, in  determining  whether  Seth  could  be  his 
Son  ?  Respecting  Adam,  it  is  said,  "  The  Lord 
God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and 
breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  lite,  and 
man  became  a  living  soul."  And  probably  Adam 
was  a  man  in  size  or  stature  at  his  first  existence. 
Could  not  Seth  be  the  son  of  Adam,  unless  the 
mode  of  his  having  existence  was  the  same  with 
Adam's  ? 

When  Adam  was  in  existence,  he  had  a  nature 
by  which  he  was  distinguished  from  God  and  from 
angels.  Such  a  nature  Seth  derived  from  Adam. 
Self-existence  may  be  essential  to  the  Divine  na- 
ture in  God,  and  proper  creation  might  be  essential 
to  the  human  nature  in  Adam.  And  as  human  na' 
ture  in  Seth  might  be  derived  from  the  created 
nature  of  Adam,  why  may  it  not  be  true  that  Di- 
vine nature  in  the  Son  was  derived  from  the  self- 
existent  nature  of  God  ? 

We  often  speak  of  Divine  nature,  angelick  na- 
ture, and  human  nature ;  but  what  do  we  know  of 
either,  excepting  certain  properties,  attributes, 
or  qualities  ?  Are  we  not  unable  to  tell  what  is 
the  radical  difference  between  an  angel  and  a 
human  soul  ?  Yet  we  believe  there  is  some 
radical  distinction.  So  we  may  be  unable  to  as- 
certain the  radical  distinction  between  the  Divine 
nature,  and  human  nature,  exclusive  of  the  different 
m:>des  of  existence.  Yet,  aside  from  those  attri- 
butes which  simply  respect  the  modes  of  existence, 
there  may  be  some  radical  difference  between 
7 


74  On  the  real  Divinity 

those  natures.  If  we  suppose  this  diversity  of  na- 
tures to  result  from  ihe  diversity  of  attributes  or 
qualities  united,  yet  there  may  be  some  property, 
attribute,  or  quality,  by  which  one  natui-e  is  dis- 
tinguished from  another,  and  the  distinguishing 
property  of  nature  may  be  wholly  unknown  to  us. 

Are  we  not,  sir,  too  ignorant  of  the  nature  of 
God,  to  pronounce  that  there  is  nothing  in  his  na- 
ture which  may  be  properly  derived  in  the  exis- 
tence of  an  OWN  Son  ?  It  may  not  be  necessary  that 
every  attribute  ef  Deity  should  be  communicable 
or  derivable  in  order  that  he  may  have  an  own 
Son.  Among  the  children  of  men,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  the  existence  or  the  idea  of  a  son,  that  he 
should  possess  all  the  attributes,  properties,  or 
qualities  of  his  father.  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  he 
should  possess  no  other  attributes  but  such  as  were 
possessed  by  his  father.  Among  the  seventy  sons 
of  Gideon,  perhaps,  there  were  no  two  thai  per- 
fectly resembled  each  other  in  their  attributes, 
properties,  or  qualities  ;  and  probably  no  one  who 
was  ihe  perfect  likeness  of  his  father.  So  Jesus 
Christ  may  have  truly  derived  his  existence  and 
nature  from  God,  and  yet  not  possess  every  attri- 
bute of  the  Father. 

Jesus  Christ  was  the  Son  of  David,  according  to 
the  fleshy  yet  we  believe  his  body  was  not  pro- 
duced by  ordinary  generation  ;  but  as  iVlary  was 
of  the  seed  of  David,  and  as  the  body  of  Christ 
was  derived  from  her,  Christ  is  called  David's 
Son.  Had  he  not  properly  derived  any  proper- 
ties from  David,  he  could  not  with  propriety  be 
called  the  Son  of  David.  And  if  his  spirit  or  soul 
had  not  been  as  properly  derived  from  God,  as  his 
body  was  from  David,  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  he 
should  be  called  the  Son  of  God,  or  God's  own 
and  ONLY  Son. 


mid  Glory  of  Christ,  75 

It  has  been  said  by  a  respectable  writer,  that 
"  it  is  totally  inconceivable  that  a  derived,  de- 
pendent nature,  should  really  possess  any  of  those 
Divine  perfections  which  essentially  belong  lo  an 
underived,  independent,  self-existent  Being." 

Had  the  word  exclusively  been  used  instead  of 
the  word  "  essentially^'^''  the  observation  would 
have  been  unexceptionable.  Self- existence  and 
independence  belorii^  to  God,  not  only  "  essentially,^^ 
but  exclusively.  But  knowledge,  power,  and  holi- 
ness, are  essential  Aitvibuies  in  God,  and  yet  know- 
ledge, power,  and  holiness,  may  be  communicated, 
not  only  to  a  derived  but  to  a  created  intelligence. 
God  may,  indeed,  possess  these  attributes  in  an  un- 
limited extent,  while  in  other  beings  they  may  be 
limited;  but  these  attributes  may  be  of  the  same 
nature  in  men  that  they  are  in  God. 

That  God  does  communicate  knowledge,  power, 
and  holiness,  will,  it  is  believed,  be  granted  by 
most  Christians.  Nor  may  we  set  any  limits  to 
the  degree  in  which  they  may  be  communicated,, 
unless  we  may  limit  the  Divine  power  of  commu' 
nication. 

However,  I  have  no  occasion  to  maintain  that 
Christ  did,  with  his  existence  as  a  Son,  derive 
any  attribute  of  Deity  in  the  extent  in  which  it  is 
possessed  by  God.  Had  he  been  personally  self- 
sufficient  and  all- sufficient,  he  would  have  had  no 
occasion  for  God's  giving  him  the  Spirit  without 
measure.  He  might,  with  his  existence,  derive  so 
\much  of  the  Divine  nature  as  to  be  truly  the  Son 
of  God  ;  and  yet  he  might  be  the  Almighty,  and 
the  Searcher  of  hearts,  by  the  indwelling  of 
the  Father,  or  ihe  fulness  of  the  Godhead, 

When  men  are  renewed  in  the  temper  of 
their  minds,  they  are  said  to  be  "  born  of  God," 


76  On  the  real  Divinity/ 

to  have  the  image  of  God  on  their  hearts  ;  and  on 
this  ground  they  are  denominated  Sons  ot  God. 
For  that  which  is  begotten,  or  produced,  in  ihtm, 
is  truly  of  a  Dixine  nature.  It  is  that  holiness  of 
heart  \vhich  is  the  glory  of  the  Divine  character. 
There  is  nothing  more  essential,  or  more  excel- 
lent, in  God,  than  holiness  ;  this  we  gee  may  be 
derived  as  the  attribute  of  a  dependent  being. 
And  this  holiness  is  precir>ely  of  the  same  nature 
in  men  that  it  is  in  God.  Its  nature  is  not  changed 
by  being  derived  or  communicated.  As  that 
which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  so  that  which 
is  born  of  (he  spirit  is  spirit — it  is  of  the  same  holy 
nature  as  the  spirit  by  which  it  is  produced. 

Will  it  be  denied,  that  holiness  is  the  excellence 
of  all  excellences  in  the  Divine  existence  and 
character?  And  if  that  which  is  essential  to  the 
Divine  existence  may  be  communicated  or  pro- 
duced as  the  attribute  of  a  dependent  agent,  by 
what  principles  of  revelation,  or  philosophy,  can  it 
be  affirmed,  that  it  is  impossible  with  God  to  pro- 
duce an  intelligent  existence  from  his  own  nature  ? 
If  God,  from  his  own  nature,  may  produce  his  mo- 
ral image,  why  may  he  not  prodiice  his  natural 
image?  And  why  may  not  Jesus  Christ  be  as  truly 
the  "  IMAGE  OF  THE  INVISIBLE  GoD,"  as  Scth  was 
the  likeness  of  Adam? 

Holiness  is  as  self-existent  in  God,  as  any  attri- 
bute of  the  Divine  nature  ;  yet  holiness  may  be 
produced  as  the.  attribute  of  a  dependent  agent. 
And  if  one  attribute,  which  is  self-existent  in  Dei- 
ty, may  he  produced  or  deri'Oed,  as  the  attribute  of 
a  dependent  agent,  without  any  change  in  its  na- 
ture, what  evidence  can  we  have  that  other  attri- 
butes, properties,  or  qualities,  which  are  self- 
existent  in  God.  may   not   be  properly  derived  ? 


and  Glory  of  Christ*  77 

Yea,  by  what  evidence  can  it  be  made  to  appear, 
that  all  the  radical  and  essential  principles  or  pro- 
perties of  intelligent  existence,  may  not  have  been 
properly  derived  from  the  Divine  nature  in  the 
person  of  God's  own  Son  ? 

From  the  circumstance,  that  holiness  is  of  the 
same  nature  in  angels  and  men  that  it  is  in  God, 
we  may  easily  discern  that  the  term  self-existence 
ought  not  to  be  used  as  expressive  of  the  nature 
of  Divine  attributes,  but  only  to  express  the  mode 
of  their  existence.  And  the  same  may  be  said  of 
the  terms  eternity,  independence^  and  infinity.  In 
God,  holiness  is  self  existent,  eternal,  independent, 
and  infinite.  But  considered  as  the  attribute  of  a 
dependent,  created  agent,  an  angel  or  a  man,  nei- 
ther of  these  epithets  can  be  applied.  Yet  holi- 
ness may  be  of  the  same  nature  in  men,  in  angels, 
and  in  God.  Why  may  not  the  same  be  true  res- 
pecting other  attributes  or  qualities  of  the  Divine 
nature  ? 

Some  additional  light  may  possibly  be  obtained, 
by  attending  to  the  idea  o{  supernatural  or  super- 
hu'uan  powers,  with  which  God,  at  some  times, 
endued  human  beings.  Samson,  at  sonie  seasons, 
was  weak  like  another  man  ;  but  when  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  came  upon  him,  he  was  able  to  per- 
form prodigies.  This  supernatural  strength,  it  ap- 
pears, was  immediately  derived  from  God.  Yet 
while  Samson  possessed  this  strength,  it  was  truly 
HIS  strength  ;  and  be  was  no  more  dependent  on 
God  for  the  strength  by  which  he  performed  the 
wonderful  things  recorded  of  him,  than  I  am  for 
the  strength  by  which  I  move  my  pen. 

The  prophets  were  endued  wiih  supernatural 
foreknowledge,  by  which  they  were  enabled  to  un- 
fold  the  volume  of  futurity,  and  predict  events  noi 


78  On  the  real  Dmnily 

only  hundreds  but  thousands  of  years  before  the 
lime  in  which  the  predictions  were  to  be  fulfilled. 

By  a  baptism  of  the  same  Spirit,  the  apostles 
were  instantaneously  endued,  and  enabled  to 
speak  in  foreign  languages  which  they  had  never 
studied. 

These  supernatural  powers  were  but  occasional 
properties  or  attributes  of  the  several  persons  who 
possessed  them.  But  while  \\\ey  were  possessed, 
they  were  personal  properties  or  attributes.  Those 
persons  were  truly  endued  with  power  from  on 
high.  The  prophets  foresaw  as  the  Spirit  gave 
them  foreknowiedge  ;  and  the  apostles  spake  as 
the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance.  This  Spirit  was  the 
Spirit  of  God  ;  and  when  it  was  given  in  an  extra- 
ordinary manner,  men  were  enabled  to  do  extra- 
ordinary things.  When  men  have  been  thus  endu- 
ed, they  have  possessed  extraordinary  portions  of 
Divine  sufficiency  ;  and  these  portions  of  sufficien- 
cy, it  appears,  they  possessed  by  a  communication 
of  Divine  fulness.  Nor  is  there  any  evidence 
that  God  might  not,  if  he  pleased,  endue  every  in- 
dividual of  the  human  race  with  the  strength  of 
Samson,  the  foreknowledge  of  Daniel,  and  the 
gift  of  speaking  all  human  languages  :  and  these, 
if  he  pleased,  might  be  continued  as  permanent  at- 
tributes of  character. 

From  what  has  been  exhibited,  it  is  pretty  evi- 
dent, that  created  intelligences  may,  by  the  plea- 
sure of  God,  possess  holiness,  knowledge,  and 
power,  which  are  truly  of  a  Divine  nature.  May 
we  not  properly  say,  that  Samson  possessed  an  ex- 
traordinary measure  of  Divine  power,  and  that 
the  prophets  and  apostles  possessed  an  extraordi- 
nary measure  of  Divine  knowledge;  and  that  all 
holv  beings  do  partake  of  that  attribute  which  is 
the  glory  of  the  Divine  nature  ? 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  79 

If  the  attributes  of  holinoss,  knowlrdge,  and 
power,  may  be  properly  commuDicated  from  God 
to  dependent  agents,  and  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
become  personal  properties  or  attributes  of  these 
agents,  what  properties  of  intelligent  existence 
may  not  be  properly  derived  from  Deity,  as  a 
stream  from  a  fountain,  or  as  a  Son  from  a  Fa- 
ther ? 

The  communication  of  these  attributes,  from  a 
self-existent  to  a  derived  agent,  seems  to  imply 
something  as  distinct  from  these  attributes  as  the 
Being  who  is  the  recipient  of  these  communica- 
tions. But  what  that  is  which  constitutes  Being, 
distinct  from  such  properties  or  attributes,  is  per- 
haps beyond  the  reach  of  mortal  discernment.  I 
have  not,  however,  made  this  remark  with  a  view 
to  deny  the  existence  of  Being,  as  distinct  from 
all  we  know  of  attributes  or  properties.  The  lan- 
guage we  use,  antJ  the  language  of  the  Bible,  natu- 
rally imply  a  recipient  or  receiver  of  Divine  com- 
munications I  qind  that  Being  does  imply  some- 
thing more  than  all  we  know  of  properties,  at- 
tributes, or  qualities.  If  any  thing  be  commu- 
nicated from  one  agent  to  another,  there  must 
be  an  agent  or  capacity  to  receive  sach  commu- 
nications. 

But  if,  from  his  own  self-existent  nature,  or 
fulness,  God  may  communicate  the  attributes  of 
knowledge,  power,  and  holiness,  to  created  intelli- 
gence, so  that  they  shall  possess,  in  measure,  these 
attributes  d^ii  derived  excellences,  what  evidence  can 
be  found  to  invalidate  the  hypothesis  that  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Son  of  G«)d  was  properly  derived 
from  the  Divine  nature  ? 

Angels  find  saints  are  called  sons  of  God  ;  yet 
Christ  is  God's  own  and  only  Son,  the  only  be- 


80  On  the   real  Divinity 

GOTTEN  of  the  Father.  The  primary  and  radical 
distinction  may  possibly  be  this  :  angels  and  saints, 
as  created  intelligences,  may  derive  from  the  Di- 
vine nature  some  attributes  or  properties  :  while 
God's  OWN  Son  may  derive  not  only  some  attri- 
butes, but  his  very  Being  or  Existence  from  the 
Divine  nature.  Some  may  imagine,  that  I  hate 
.laboured  hard,  in  this  investigation,  to  support  a 
self-invented  theory.  But  this  is  not  the  case  ;  I 
have  been  labouring  to  support  the  primitive  Chris- 
iian  faith,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  the  Son  of 
God,  God's  own  and  only  Son  !  and  to  rescue  the 
plain,  abundant,  and  emphatical  language  of  Scrip- 
ture, from  the  strong  prepossession  of  my  fellow 
Christians. 

Dr.  Spring  says,  "  The  Scriptures  were  inspir- 
ed, to  instruct  common  readers,  by  using  words 
according  to  their  common  acceptation,  and  not  to 
confound  them  by  an  abuse  of  language."*" 

Had  the  principle  advanced  in  this  excellent  re- 
mark been  understood  and  duly  regarded,  I  should 
have  had  no  occasion  for  a  laboured  discussion  to 
prove  that  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  the  Son  of  God, 
But  the  plain  meaning  of  the  terms  has  been  so 
involved  in  the  labyrinth  of  controversy^  and  the 
mists  of  prepossession^  that  it  has  required  some 
fortitude  to  assert  and  some  labour  to  prove,  that 
the  concurrent  testimony  of  God,  of  Christ,  and 
ihe  apostles,  is  to  be  regarded  difi  a  correct  expres- 
sion of  the  truth.  Yea,  1  have  been  labouring  to 
prove,  that  these  witnesses  used  '^  words  according 
to  their  common  acceptation,"  and  that  they  did 
not  mean  '^  to  confound  us  by  an  abuse  of  lan- 
guage,"^^ 

Had  the   plain  and  natural  import  of  language 

*  Sermon  on  the  Self-existence  of  Christ. 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  81 

been  heretofore  duly  regarded,  an  allompt  to  prove 
that  Christ  is  truly  the  Soiv  of  GofI,  uould  have 
been  as  needless,  as  an  attempt  to  prove  that  Isaac 
was  truly  the  son  of  Abraham. 

POSTSCRIPT. 

^HER^  are  some  who  predicate  the  Sonship  of 
Christ  simply  on  the  ground  stated  by  the  angel 
to  Mary,  '*  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  tome  upon  thee, 
and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow 
thee:  therefore  that  holy  thing  which  shall  be 
born  of  thee,  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God." 

That  this  text  contains  a  reason  why  Christ,  in 
his  incarnate  state,  should  be  called  the  Son  of 
God,  I  will  not  deny  ;  and  if  I  were  in  the  habit 
of  believing  that  the  soul  or  spirit  of  Christ  had  no 
pre-exi'^tence,  I  should  readily  admit  this  as  the 
primary  ground  on  which  he  is  called  the  Son  of 
God.  But  even  on  such  an  hypothesis,  nothing 
could  be  made  to  appear  against  the  sup{)Osition 
that  his  existence  was  truly  derived  from  God,  in  a 
sense  by  which  he  is  distinguished  from  every 
other  intelligent  being.  But  1  as  fully  believe 
that  the  Son  of  God,  as  an  intelligent  Being,  ex- 
isted before  the  world,  as  1  believe  that  he  now 
exists. 

Some  will  probably  object,  that  it  is  unaccounta- 
ble and  inconceivable  how  God  should  have  a  Son. 
But,  you,  sir,  I  trust,  will  not  make  the  incompre- 
bensibleness  of  the  mode  of  Divine  operation  an 
objection  to  the  theory.  For  this  hypothesis  is  far 
more  consistent  with  all  we  do  knozo.  than  the  sup- 
position of  THREE  infinite  Persons  in  one  intelligent 
Being.  The  hypothesis  which  I  have  proposed 
contradicts  nothing  which  we  know  of  Person,  of 
Being  or  of  God.     It   is  doubtless  repugnant  to 


82  On  the  real  Divinity 

what  some  men  have  thought  ;  but  it  may  be  pre- 
suQied  that  it  is  not  repugnant  to  what  is  knownhy 
any  man.  Nor  does  the  hypothesis  imply  any 
thing  more  inconceivable,  unaccountable,  or  incom- 
prehensible, than  what  is  implied  in  the  existence 
of  every  other  intelligent  being  in  the  universe.  Hozo 
God  exists  without  any  cause,  and  how  he  could  give 
existence  to  angels,  or  to  men,  are  as  perfectly  in- 
conceivable to  us,  as  hozu  he  could  give  existence  to 
an  OWN  Son.  And  I  may  ask  the  objector,  whether 
it  be  more  inconceivable  to  us  how  God  could  have 
an  OWN  Son  than  it  is  to  conceive  how  or  why  such 
a  thing  should  be  impossible  with  Him  ?  If  we  are 
to  draw  our  conclusions  from  all  we  know  of  God 
by  his  works  and  by  his  word,  we  have  surely  as 
much  ground  to  say  that  such  a  ihing  is possiblej 
as  we  have  to  say  it  is  impossible. 


LETTER  IV. 

The  Divine  Dignity  of  the  Son  of  God, 

REV.   SIR, 

Whatever  may  be  the  apprehensions  of  others, 
respecting  my  attempt  to  prove  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  truly  the  Son  of  God,  you  may  be  assured,  sir, 
that  it  has  been  no  part  of  my  object  to  degrade 
his  character.  If  it  did  not  seem  a  "  light  thing"  to 
David  to  be  a  "  kingU  son-in-law,^^  it  surely  ought 
not  to  be  viewed  by  us  degrarling  to  Christ,  to 
coH'iider  him  as  God's  own  and  only  Son. — And  I 
shall  now  attempt  to  show, 

That  the  Son  of  God  is  truly  a  Person  of  Divine 
Dignity, 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  83' 

No  principle,  perhaps,  has  been  more  univer- 
sally admitted,  than  ihis,  that  a  son  derives  digni- 
ty from  illustrious  parentage. 

The  Jews,  to  whom  Christ  made  his  appearance 
in  the  flesh,  were  all  acquainted  with  ihis  princi- 
ple;  and  though  many  generatiotjs  had  intervened, 
they  still  gloried  in  the  idea  that  they  weie  ihe  de- 
scendants of  the  illustrious  patriarch   Abraham. 

There  is,  perhaps,  no  nation,  whether  barba- 
rous, civilized,  or  christianized  in  which  the  prin- 
ciple is  not  admitted.  The  sons  of  emptrors, 
kings,  and  noblemen  are  considered  as  deriving 
dignity  from  their  respective  fathers.  And  the  de- 
rived dignity  of  each  is  according  to  the  acknow- 
ledged dignity  of  his  father. — But  more  especially 
is  ihe  first-born  or  only  son  of  a  king  or  en.peror, 
considered  as  deriving  royal  or  imperial  dignity  by 
royal  or  imperial  descent.  It  is  indeed  true,  that 
a  son  of  the  most  renowned  and  worthy  king  may 
by  vicious  or  disobedient  conduct,  forfeit  his  deriv- 
ed dignity,  and  subject  himself  to  the  displeasure 
of  his  father,  and  to  general  infamy ;  but  this 
forms  no  ground  of  objection  to  the  principle  of 
derived  dignity.  And  on  the  same  principle  that  a 
worthy  son  of  a  worthy  king  derives  rot/a/ dignity, 
the  Son  of  God  derives  Divine  dignity.  And  on 
the  same  principle  that  the  most  worthy  son  of 
the  most  renowned  king  derives  higher  dignity 
than  the  son  of  a  common  peasant^  the  derived  dig- 
nity of  the  Son  of  God  will  appear  to  be  infinite. 
For  his  Father  is  infinitely  iliusirious.  This  must 
certainly  be  the  case,  unless  the  Son  has  done 
something  by  which  he  has  forfeited  his  claim. 
But  that  he  has  not,  we  have  the  highest  ground  of 
assurance  ;  twice  by  an  audible  voice  from  hea- 
ven, God  has  proclaimed  his  perfect  satisfaction  in 


84  On  the  real  Divinity 

his  Son,  by  saying,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son  in 
whom  I  am  zot II  pleased."^^  Aikj  we  have  still  far- 
ther assurance  of  the  sanrie  thing,  by  ihe  high  and 
important  offices  with  which  God  has  invested  his 
BELOVED  Son. 

It  has  sometimes  been  the  case  in  earthly  gov- 
ernments, that  a  king's  son  who  was  well  beloved 
of  the  father  has  been  admitted,  during  the  father's 
life  to  a  joint  participation  in  the  government, 
and  invested  by  the  faiher  with  kingly  authority. 
Such  was  the  case  with  Solomon  the  son  of  David. 
Solomon  derived  his  authority  from  David,  and  by 
the  pleasure  of  David  he  was  crowned  king  ;  but 
Solomon  was  as  truly  the  king  of  Israel  as  though 
he  had  possessed  the  same  authority  by  self-ex- 
istence. 

If  it  be  true,  that  God  has  an  own  and  only  S'on, 
in  whom  he  is  well  pleased,  it  would  be  natural  to 
expect  that  he  would  delight  to  honour  him  in  the 
highest  possible  manner. 

Moreover,  any  wise  and  benevolent  king,  being 
about  to  invest  his  son  with  kingly  authority,  would, 
were  it  in  his  power,  endue  his  son  with  every 
qualification  or  attribute  which  would  be  requisite 
to  the  most  perfect  and  honourable  execution  of 
the  otiice  which  he  was  to  sustain.  And  such  we 
may  suppose  v/ould  be  the  pleasure  of  God  res- 
pecting his  Son.  Nor  may  we  suppose  any  insuf- 
ficiency in  God,  in  respect  to  communicating  of  his 
own  infinite  fulness  to  the  Son,  in  whom  he  is  ever 
well  pleased. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  sacred  oracles,  to  see 
whether  these  reasonable  expectations  are  justified 
by  revealed  facts. 

In  respect  to  communicated  fulness  or  sufficien- 
cy, we    have  the    following    declarations:     *' He 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  85 

whom  God  hath  sent,  speaketh  the  words  of  God  ; 
for  God  givelh  not  the  Spirit  by  measure  unto 
him."  John  iii.  34. 

**  For  it  [)leased  the  Father,  that  in  him  all  full- 
ness should  dwell."  Col.  i.  19. 

"  In  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
head bodily."  Col.  ii.  9. 

Such  then  has  been  the  pleasure  of  God  in  res- 
pect to  enduing  his  Son  with  Divine  sufficiency. 
If  by  a  portion  or  measure  of  the  Divine  Spirit, 
the  apostles  were  instantaneously  endued  to  speak 
a  number  of  languages  which  they  had  never 
learned,  what  may  not  the  Son  of  God  be  able  to 
do,  who  has  the  Spirit  without  measure  ?  And  if  it 
hath  pleased  the  Father  that  all  fulness  should 
dwell  in  his  Son,  we  can  with  no  more  propriety 
set  bounds  to  the  sufficiency  of  Christ,  than  to  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead. 

Thus  we  find  one  of  the  reasonable  expectations 
justified  by  plain  and  positive  declarations  of  Scrip- 
ture. 

We  have  next  to  show,  that  God  has  manifested 
a  disposition  to  honour  his  Son  in  the  highest  pos- 
sible manner. 

As  the  first  token  of  this  disposition  in  God,  we 
may  notice  that  God  constituted  his  Son  the  Creator 
of  the  world.  In  this  great  and  astonishing  work, 
a  surprising  display  was  made  of  the  power,  the 
wisdom,  and  the  goodness  of  God.  But  in  this 
work,  it  appears  that  the  Son  was  honoured  as  the 
constituted  Creator  ^  for  we  are  expressly  told,  that 
God  "  created-d\\  things  by  Jesus  Christ."  Eph. 
iii.  9. 

The  work  of  creation  is  sometimes  expressly 
attributed  to  God,  and  sometimes  as  expressly  at- 
tributed to  the  Word  or  Son  of  God  :  and  from 
8 


8C  On  the  real  Divinily 

these  rcprpsentations  many  have  argued  that  the 
Son  and  God  are  the  same  Being.  But  it  is 
thought  that  this  conclusion  has  been  too  hastily 
adopted.  For  if  God  created  all  things  by  Jesus 
Christ,  the  work  of  creation  may,  h  itti  great  pro- 
priety, be  attributed  to  either  the  Father  or  the 
Son;  and  yet  they  may  be  two  distinct  intelligent 
Beings.  God  spake  by  the  prophets  ;  and  what 
the  prophets  said,  may,  with  propriety,  be  attribut- 
ed to  either  God  or  the  prophets  ;  but  it  will  not 
hence  follow  that  God  and  the  prophets  are  but 
one  and  the  same  intelligent  Being.  As  the  pro- 
phets were  constituted  mediums  9,nd  agents  in  fore- 
telling events,  so  Christ  was  the  constituted  Creator 
of  all  things  in  heaven  and  earth. 

In  the  next  place,  we  may  observe,  that  the  Son 
was  constituted  ihe  angel  of  God^s  presence^  or  tbe 
medium  by  which  God  appeared  or  manifested  him- 
self to  the  ancient  patriarchs. 

We  have  many  accounts  of  God's  appearing  to 
Abraham,  to  Isaac,  to  Jacob,  and  to  Moses;  and 
seeing  these  visible  manifestations,  is  several  times 
represented  as  seeing  God.  Yet  the  matter  is  so 
explained  in  the  New  Testament,  as  to  give  us  rea- 
son to  suppose  that  these  visible  manifestations  of 
God's  presence  were  made  in  the  Person  of  the 
Son  of  God.  For  it  is  said,  "  No  man  hath  seen 
God  at  any  time;  the  only  begotten  Son,  who  is 
in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared 
him,"  or  manifested  him.  The  Son,  in  those  ap- 
pearances, was  usually  denominated  the  angel  of 
the  Lord.*  And  when  this  angel  was  employed 
by  God,  as  the  conductor  and  guardian  of  the  peo- 

*  I  feel  less  confident  that  Christ  was  the  angel  of  God  than  I 
did  when  I  wrote  these  Letters.  BiU  I  have  not  seen  satisfactory 
reasons  for  relinquishing  the  sentiment.     March,  1812. 


^  and  Glory  of  Christ,  87 

pie  of  Israel  in  iheir  journey  from  Egypt  to  Canaan, 
God  gave  this  solemn  caution  to  the  peoj)le.  '•  Be- 
ware of  him,  and  ob.ey  his  voice  ;  provoke  him 
not:  for  he  will  not  pardon  your  transgression; 
for  MY  NAME  is  in  him."  By  7iame  here  may  be 
understood,  dlgnily^  fulness^  and  authority.  And 
as  G(»d  thus  dwelt  in  the  Son,  and  manifested  his 
dignity,  fulness,  and  authority,  through  the  Son, 
Isaiah  denominates  the  Son  the  An,2;cl  of  God's 
presence — '*  And  the  angel  of  his  presence  saved 
them."  Accordingly,  those  visible  manifestations 
are  sometimes  represented  as  the  appearance  of 
God,  and  sometimes  as  the  appearance  of  the  angel 
of  the  Lord,  or  the  angel  of  God  :  And  what  was 
spoken  on  those  occasions  is  sometimes  represent- 
ed  as  spoken  by  God,  and  sometimes  as  spoken 
by  the  angel  ;  just  as  the  work  of  creation  is  some- 
tim<^s  attributed  to  God,  and  sometimes  to  the  Son 
of  God.  And  as  God  manifested  himself  thus  in 
the  person  of  his  (So?z,  so  the  patriarchs  considered 
God  as  present  in  those  visible  manifestations. 

I  am  not,  sir,  alone,  nor  an  original,  in  consider- 
ing the  Son  of  God  as  the  Medium  of  Divine  mani- 
festations. Athanasian  writers  have  done  (he 
same.  But  is  it  not  a  manifest  impropriety  to  con- 
sider a  Being  as  the  Medium  of  his  own  manifesta- 
tions ?  If  Christ  be  truly  the  Son  of  God,  he  may 
be  truly  the  Medium  through  which  God  mani- 
fests himself;  and  may  thus  be  in  the  '^forjn  of 
God,^'^  But  if  he  be  personally  the  self-existent 
God,  he  can,  with  no  propriety,  be  considered  as 
the  Medium  of  Divine  manifestations. 

Although  God  had,  in  various  ways,  manifested 
his  love  to  his  Son  prior  to  the  incarnation,  yet 
such  was  his  love  to  mankind,  and  so  important 
was  our  salvation  in  the  view  of  God,  that  he  was 
disposed  to  give  his  only  begotten  Son  as  a  sac- 


88  On  the  real  Divinity 

rifice  for  our  redemption.  And  although  the  Soft 
of  God  had  been  highly  honoured  and  exalted  by 
bis  Father,  and  had  often  appeared  in  the  '-'-form 
ef  God^^  to  transact  affairs  of  high  importance,  yet 
such  was  the  benevolence  and  condescension  of 
this  Son,  that  he  freely  concurred  in  the  Father's 
proposal  for  the  redemption  of  man,  and  said  "  Lo, 
i  come  to  do  thy  will,  O  God."  But  to  accom- 
plish this  great  purpose,  the  Sou  must  lay  aside  the 
form  of  God,  and  take  on  himself  the  form  of  a 
servant — he  must  become  incarnate,  be  united  to  a 
human  body,  and  be  the  "  Son  of  David  according 
to  the  flesh,^'^  Thus  he  who  was  rich,  for  our  sakes 
became  poor,  that  we,  through  his  poverty,  might 
be  made  rich.  And  being  found  in  fashion  as  a 
man,  he  humbled  himself,  and  became  obedient 
tinto  death. 

But  such  voluntary  and  deep  abasement  in  the 
Son,  was  not  to  pass  unnoticed  nor  unrewarded  by 
the  Father.  And  we  have  the  most  plain  and  un- 
equivocal testimony,  that  God  did  honour  his  Son 
by  constituting  him  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  the 
Lord  of  all,  and  the  SufrExME  Judge  of  the 
quick  and  the  dead. 

That  it  is  as  the  fruit  of  the  Father's  love  to 
the  Son,  and  on  the  ground  of  a  constituted  charac^ 
ter,  that  Christ  bears  those  and  other  Divine  names 
and  titles,  I  shall  endeavour  clearly  to  prove. 

John  the  Baptist,  in  his  testimony  concerning 
the  Son,  not  only  said,  "  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit 
by  measure  unto  him  ;"  but  added,  "  the  Father 
loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given  all  things  intd  his 
handJ^"^ — John  iii.  35. 

When  the  Son  was  about  to  leave  his  disciples 
and  ascend  into  heaven,  he  proclaimed  in  their 
ears,  "  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and 
earth." — Matt,  xxviii.  18. 


and  Glory  of  ChrisL  89 

Peter,  in  his  iin|>ressive  sermon  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  having  stated  many  things  from  ihe 
scriptures,  to  prove  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ, 
addressed  the  audience  in  these  words,  "  Therefore 
let  all  the  house  ot  Israel  know  assuredly,  that 
God  hath  made  that  same  Jesus^  whom  ye  have 
crucified,  both  Lord  and  Christ." — Acts  ii.  36. 

In  the  same  sermon,  Peter  also  said,  "  This  Je- 
sus hath  God  raised  up,  whereof  we  are  witnesses. 
Therefore  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted, 
and  having  received  of  fhe  Father  the  promise  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye 
now  see  and  hear." — Arts  ii.  32,  33. 

In  another  address,  Peter  said,  "  The  God  of 
Abraham,  and  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,  the  God  of 
our  fathers  hath  glorified  his  boN  Jesus. — Acts 
iii.  13. 

And  again,  "  the  God  of  our  fathers  raised  up 
Jesus,  whom  ye  slew  and  hanged  on  a  tree:  Him 
h  ith  God  exalted,  with  his  own  right  hand,  to  be 
a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  to  give  repentance  unto 
Israel,  and  forgiveness  of  sins." — Arts  v.'SO,  31. 

The  same  views  of  the  constituted  charac- 
ter of  the  Son  as  Lord  of  all,  are,  if  possible, 
more  forcibly  expressed  by  Saint  Paul. 

Speaking  of  the  astonishing  disphiys  of  the  erace 
and  power  of  God,  he  says,  '•'  which  he  wrought  in 
Christ,  whew  he  raised  him  from  the  dead,  and  set 
HIM  at  his  own  right  hand  in  the  heavenly  places, 
far  above  all  principality,  and  power,  and  might, 
and  dominion,  and  every  name  which  is  named,  not 
only  in  this  world,  but  also  in  that  which  is  to 
come:  And  haih  put  all  things  under  his  feet,  and 
gave  him  to  be  the  Head  over  all  things  to  the 
church."— Eph.  i.  20,  22. 

The   same   apostle,   having  in  a  most  striking 
8* 


90  On  the  real  Divinity 

manner  represented  the  astonishing  condescension 
and  deep  abasement  of  Christ,  proceeds  to  slate 
the  reward  given  to  him  by  God — "  Wherefore 
God  also  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him 
a  name  which  is  above  every  name,  that  at  the 
name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things 
in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under 
the  earth ;  and  that  every  tongue  should  confess 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the 
Father."— Phil.  ii.  9,  11. 

To  unprejudiced  minds,  the  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, already  adduced,  may  be  sufficient  to  prove, 
that  it  is  by  the  gift  and  pleasure  of  God,  that  his 
Son  sustains  the  offices  and  bears  the  divine  names 
of  Saviour  and  Lord.  Much  more  of  the  same  im- 
port might  be  produced  ;  but  those  who  can  resist, 
evade,  or  set  aside  such  plain  and  unambiguous 
testimony  as  has  been  already  exhibited,  might  do 
so  by  a  volume  of  the  same  kind. 

I  have  yet,  however,  distinctly  to  show,  that  God 
has  constituted  his  Son  the  Supreme  Judge  of 
the  quick  and  dead.  In  proof  of  the  point  now 
before  us,  we  may  begin  with  the  testimony  of 
Christ  himself.  As  he  is  the  faithful  and  true 
witness,  and  well  acquainted  with  his  own  charac- 
ter, much  reliance  may  be  placed  on  his  testimony. 
It  will  be  needless  here  to  introduce  the  nume- 
rous declarations  which  Christ  made  of  his  author- 
ity as  the  Judge  of  the  world.  All  we  have  to  do 
is  to  show  how  he  came  by  this  authority  ;  whether 
he  possesses  it  as  the  self-existent  God,  or  whether 
he  hath  been  invested  with  this  authority  by  the 
Father. 

When  Christ  had  healed  the  impotent  man,  the 
Jews  accused  him  of  profaning  the  Sabbath  day^ 
In  reply  to  their  accusation,  Jesus  said,   "my  Fa- 


and  Glory  of  Christ.  91 

ther  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work."  His  calling 
God  his  Father,  the  Jews  considered  as  blasphemy, 
and  sought  the  more  to  kill  him.  It  appears  pro- 
bable, that  the  Jews  well  understood  the  principle 
of  derived  dignity,  and  that  they  understood  Christ 
as  claiming  divine  dignity  by  professing  to  be  the 
Son  of  God.*  They  evidently  understood  him,  as 
calling  God  his  Father,  in  the  peculiar  and  proper 
sense.  For  while  they  gloried  in  having  "  one 
Father,  even  God,"  they  considered  Christ  as  guil- 
ty of  blasphemy  in  claiming  the  title  of  the  Son  of 
God. 

In  reply  to  their  accusations,  Christ  gave  them  a 
more  full  account  of  his  character  and  dignity,  and 
said,  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  the  Son  can 
do  nothing  of  himself,  but  what  he  seeih  the  Father 
do  :  for  what  things  soever  he  doeih,  these  also 
doeth  the  Son  likewise.  For  the  Father  loveth 
the  Son,  and  showeth  him  all  things  that  himself 
doeth  :  and  he  will  show  him  greater  works  than 
these,  that  ye  may  marvel.  For  as  the  Father 
raiseth  up  the  dead,  and  quickeneth  them,  even  so 
the  Son  quickeneth  whom  he  will.  For  the  Father 
judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  committed  all  judg- 
ment UNTO  THE  Son,  that  all  men  should  honour  the 
Son,  even  as  they  honour  the  Father." — John  v. 

If  God  hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the 
Son,  then  he  has  constituted  the  Son  as  Judge. 
But  Christ  gives  a  further  account — "  Verily,  veri- 
ly, 1  say  unto  you,  the  hour  is  coming,  and  now  is, 

*  In  the  common  translation  of  John  v.  18,  we  read,  "  but  said, 
God  was /iw  Father V  Dr.  Macknight  says  it  ou^ht  to  be  ^'- his 
fro-per  Father''''  Dr  Hopkins  says  '■'' his  own  proper  Father.''^ 
Dr.  Campbell  translates  the  whole  verse  thus,  "  For  this  reason  the 
Jews  were  the  more  intent  to  kill  him,  because  he  had  not  only  bro- 
ken the  sabbath,  but  by  calliog  Godj?ecw/iari!y  A/*Fo//ierhadequaN 
led  himself  with  God." 


92  Gn  the  real  Divinity 

when  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of- 
God  :  and  they  that  hear  shall  live.  For  as  the 
Father  hath  life  in  hi[nself,  so  hath  he  given  to 
THE  Son  to  have  life  in  himself  ;  and  hath  given 
HIM  AUTHORITY  to  execulc  judgment,  because  he 
is  the  Son  of  man. — I  can  of  mine  own  self  do 
nothing:  As  I  hear,!  j'Jrlge,  and  my  judgment  is 
just,  because  I  seek  not  mine  own  will,  but  the  will 
of  the  Father  which  hath  sent  me." 

To  those  who  place  full  confidence  in  Christ  as 
a  faithful  and  true  witnes>,  his  testimony  may  be 
sufficient.  But  for  the  conviction  of  those  who 
may  think  that  two  or  three  witnesses  are  needtul 
in  the  present  case,  we  may  add  the  testimonies  of 
Peter  and  Paul. 

Peter,  in  his  sermon  at  the  house  of  Cornelius,  af- 
ter stating  that  he  and  others  did  eat  and  drink  with 
Christ  after  his  resurrection,  said,  ''  and  he  com- 
manded us  to  preach  unto  the  people,  and  to  testi- 
fy that  it  is  he  which  is  ordained  of  God  to  be 
the  Judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead." 

Paul,  in  his  discourse  to  the  people  of  Athens, 
said,  "  and  the  times  of  this  ignorance  God  winked 
at,  but  now  commandeth  all  men  every  where  to 
repent:  Because  he  hath  appointed  a  day  in  which 
he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness,  by  that 
Man  whom  he  hath  ordained,  whereof  he  hath 
given  assurance  unto  all  men,  in  that  he  hath  rais- 
ed him  from  the  dead." 

I  see  no  rational  way  in  which  these  testimonies 
can  be  invalidated,  without  impeaching  the  charac- 
ters of  the   witnesses. 

An  earthly  sovereign,  whose  will  is  the  law  of 
the  enipire,  can,  at  pleasure,  advance  an  own  and 
only  Son  to  nny  rank  or  office,  which  does  not  in- 
volve a  contradiction. 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  9S 

The  father  cannot  cause  his  son  to  rank  with 
himself  as  to  age^  nor  can  he  render  the  son  inde^ 
pendent  of  himself  in  respect  to  existence^  dignity^ 
or  office.  But  it  is  in  the  power  of  a  king  or  empe- 
ror to  confer  on  his  son  any  office  in  the  army, 
from  an  ensign  to  that  of  commander  in  chief. 
He  may  also,  at  pleasure,  make  his  son  the  gov- 
ernour  of  a  province,  chief  judge,  or  sole  judge  in 
the  highest  court  of  justice,  or  viceroy  of  half  the 
empire,  or  even  a  copartner  with  himself  on  the 
throne;  and  in  testimony  of  the  high  esteem  he 
has  for  his  son,  he  may  place  him  at  his  own  right 
hand. 

Such  a  course  of  conduct  in  an  earthly  sovereign 
towards  an  only  son  may  indeed  be  the  result  of 
caprice  or  partiality  ;  but  it  may  also  be  the  result 
of  consummate  wisdom  and  benevolence.  For  the 
good  of  the  empire  may  be  in  the  best  manner  pro- 
moted by  such  measures. 

As  an  earthly  sovereign  may  advance  his  son  to 
any  office  he  pleases,  so  he  may  confer  on  him 
whatever  title  of  dignity  he  may  think  proper.  He 
may  dignify  his  son  with  the  title  of  lord,  or  arch- 
chancellor  of  the  empire,  lord  chief  justice,  prince 
of  peace,  president  of  the  princes,  or  he  may  con- 
fer on  him  his  own  royal  or  imperial  title,  as  king 
or  emperor.  And  in  respect  to  several  relations, 
he  may  at  the  same  time  have  various  titles  of  dig- 
nity. 

These  observations  present  to  our  view  some- 
thing analogous  to  the  representations  given  in 
Scripture  in  regard  to  God's  conduct  in  dignifying 
his  only  and  well-beloved  Son.  The  titles  Lord, 
Saviour,  and  Judge,  are  titles  which  properly  be- 
long to  God.  But  God  had  a  right  to  confer  the 
same  titles  on   his  beloved  Son,  and  to  invest  him 


94  On  the  real  iDiviniiy 

wilh  the  authority  and  sufficiency  imported  by  these 
titles.  And  if  we  may  safely  rely  on  the  testimony 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles  as  proof,  God  has  actu- 
ally thus  dignified  his  Son. — He  hath  "  exalted 
him  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour" — "made  him 
to  be  both  Lord  and  Christ" — "  given  him  all 
power  in  heaven  and  earth" — "  ordained  him  to 
be  the  Judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead" — "  com- 
mitted all  judgment  unto  the  Son,  and  given  him 
a  name  which  is  above  every  name."  And  the 
Scriptures  afford  no  more  evidence  that  Solonion 
sat  on  the  throne  of  Israel,  by  the  appointment  and 
pleasure  of  David,  than  they  do  that  the  Son  of 
Gfod  sits  on  the  throne  of  the  universe  by  the  ap- 
pointment and  pleasure  of  God  his  Father,  There 
are  other  titles  that  belong  to  God,  which  by  his 
pleasure  are  given  to  his  Son. 

God  often  styles  himself  the  Holy  One,  or  the 
Holy  One  of  Israel.  The  title  of  Holy  One  is 
also  given  to  the  Son.  Bdt  the  Son  is  plainly  dis- 
tinguished from  the  self-existent  Holy  One,  by  be- 
ing represented  as  God's  Holy  One,  or  the  "  Holy 
One  of  God."  To  the  truth,  in  this  ca«p,  Satan 
himself  was  constrained  to  bear  witness*  '••  I  know 
thee  who  thou  art,  the  Holy  One  of  God."  The 
words  of  David,  quoted  by  Peter,  are  to  the  same 
purpose—"  Neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thine  Holy  One 
to  see  corruption." 

The  name  Jehovah,  which  is  often  translated 
Lord  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  a  name  which  be- 
longs to  God  ;  but  by  the  pleasure  of  God  this 
name  with  some  addition  is  given  to  the  Son. 
"  Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I 
will  r«i5e  unto  David  a  righteous  Branch;  and  a 
King  shall  reign  and  prosper,  and  shall  execute 
judgment  and  justice   in  the   earth.     In    his  days 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  95 

Judah  shall  be  saved  and  Israel  shall  dwell  safely ; 
and  this  is  the  i.ame  whereby  he  shall  be  called, 
The  Lord  [or  Jehovah]  our  righteousness." 

That  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  in  his  incar- 
nate state,  is  intended  in  this  prophecy,  there  can 
be  no  reasonable  doubi.  And  that  it  is  on  the 
ground  of  a  constituted  character,  and  by  the 
pleasure  of  God  his  Father,  that  he  bears  the  name 
Jehovah  our  Righteousness,  is  sufficiently  plain 
from  the  passage  quoted  It  is  God  himself  who 
gives  the  informaiion  in  the  text:  and  this  one 
God  tells  us  of  a  person  or  character  which  he 
would  raise  up,  and  the  name  by  which  this  Son 
should  be  called. 

The  name  Jehovah  being  given  to  the  Son,  is 
considered  by  Mr.  Jones  as  evidence  thaf  the  Son 
is  personally  the  self-existent  God.  But  had  he 
compared  one  of  his  own  remarks  with  the  words 
of  an  apostle,  he  might  have  seen  his  own  mistake. 
Mr.  Jones  suggests,  that  the  name  Lord,  in  the 
New  Tesiarae^nt,  which  is  given  to  Christ,  is  of  the 
same  import  as  Jehovah  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  apostle  Peter  says,  ''Let  all  ihe  house  of  Is- 
rael knozo assuredly,  that  God  hath  made  thai  same 
Jesus,  whom  ye  have  crucified,  both  Lord  and 
Christ."  If,  then,  Mr.  Jones  be  correct  in  affirm- 
ing that  Lord  and  Jehovah  are  terms  ot  the  same 
import,  and  the  apostle  be  correct  in  the  text  just 
quoted;  am'  I  not  authorized  to  say  that  God  hath 
made,  or  constituted,  his  Son  Jehovah  our  righteous- 
ness ?* 

*  Jehovah  our  Righteousness.  Emmanuel  That  these  signi- 
ficant names,  as  applied  to  the  Messiah,  are  no  proof  that  he  was 
jthe  living  God  may  appear  from  the  following  considerations, 
▼iz. 

1.  "Jehovah  our  Righteousness"  is  not  only  applied  t« 


96  On  the  real  Divinily 

On  similar  ground,  and  by  the  same  Divine 
pleasure,  the  Son  bad  his  name  called  Emmanuel 
— Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God,  the 
everlasting  Father,  and  ihe  Prince  of  Peace.  On 
the  very  face  of  the  prophecies,  in  which  these 
names  are  brought  into  view,  it  is  clearly  intimated, 
that  it  is  by  the  pleasure  of  God  that  the  Son  bears 
these  titles.  The  Son  is  manifestly  the  subject  of 
the  predictions,  and  God  the  author.  And  God 
says  respecting  his  Son,  "  His  name  shall  be  called 
Enmianuel — His  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful." 

That  it  is  by  inheritance  as  a  Son,  and  by  the 
pleasure  of  the  Faiher,  that  Christ  bears  the  name 
God,  is  plainly  revealed  in  the  first  chapter  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews*  As  the  chapter  was  evi- 
dently designed  to  give  us  a  correct  and  exalted 
view  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  ground  on  which 
he  possesses  such  an  exalted  character,  and  such 
divine  titles,  I  shall  quote  nine  verses  : — 

the  Messiah^  but  by  the  same  prophet  it  is  applied  to  the  church 
or  to  Judah  and  Jerusalem—^'-  This  is  the  name  by  which  She 
shall  be  called  the  Lord  (Jehovah)  our  Righteousness."  Jer. 
xviii.  16.  .  ' 

2.  The  name  "  Emmanuel"  is  used  three  times  in  the  Bible. 
Isa.  vii.  14,  it  is  applied  to  the  son  of  the  prophetess,  probably 
as  a  lypt  of  Christ.  Matt.  \.  23,  it  is  applied  to  Christ,  as  the 
antitype.  But  in  Isa.  viii.  8,  it  i^  applied  to  the  people  of  Judah, 
"  Thy  land,  O  Emmanuel  "  In  all  the  instances  the  word  im- 
plied that  God  was  ivitk  that  people  by  peculiar  favour.  But  such 
significant  names  determine  nothing  in  respect  to  the  dignitj  of 
the  persons  or  the  people,  to  whom  they  are  applied.  The  name 
/</i/r<ad  signifies  ^'' God  who  /ieai5,"just  a.s  the  name  Emmanuel 
signifies  '•'•  God  with  us.''''  But  we  do  not  infer  that  Hagar's  son 
•was  the  prayer  hearing  God,  because  the  angel  required  her  to 
'*  call  his  name  Ishmael.''''  If  it  would  be  improper  to  infer  that 
Hagar's  son  was  a  person  in  Deity,  it  is  equally  improper  to  infer 
this  of  the  Messiah,  on  the  ground  of  his  name  Emmanuel^  or  Je- 
hovah our  Righteousness. 


and  Glory  of  Christ.  97 

"  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  man- 
ners, spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the 
prophets,  baih  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us 
by  his  Son,  whom  he  hath  appointed  heir  of  all 
things,  by  whom  also  he  made  the  worlds;  who 
being  the  brightness  of  his  glory,  and  the  express 
image  of  his  person,  and  upholding  all  things  by 
the  word  of  his  power,  when  he  had  by  himself  purg- 
ed our  sins,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Ma- 
jesty on  high  ;  being  made  so  much  better  than 
the  angels,  as  he  hath  by  inheritance  obtained  a 
more  excellent  name  than  they." 

Before  I  proceed  farther  in  the  quotations,  1 
may  make  a  few  remarks. 

1.  G'ld  in  this  passage  is  evidently  spoken  of  as 
one  distinct  Person  or  intelligent  Being,  according- 
ly the  pronouns  for  God  are  he,  his. 

2.  The  Son  of  G  jd  is  spoken  of  as  a  Person  or 
B'^ing.  as  distinct  from  God  as  any  son  is  distinct 
from  his  father:  atid  as  distinct  from  God  as  are 
prophets  or  angels. ..«God  spake  by  the  prophets.,,, 
so  God  spake  by  his  Son. 

3  As  a  son  is  the  image  of  his  father,  so  the 
Son  of  God  is  represented  as  the  express  image  of 
the  Person  of  God. 

4.  The  Son  is  heir  of  all  things  by  the  appoint- 
ment  of  God. 

5.  The  Son  is  so  distinct  from  God,  that  he  can 
sit  on  (xod's  right  hand. 

6.  By  being  truly  the  Son  of  God,  and  by  in- 
heritance, Christ  hath  a  better  name  than  the  an- 
gels.. .Being  M\DE  so  much  better  than  the  iingelsj 
as  he  hath  by  iNHearrANCE  a  more  excellent  name 
than  they.. ..Being  truly  God's  own  Son,  he  inhe- 
rits his  Father's  dignity. 

9 


98  On  Ihe  real  Divinity 

In  proof  that  the  Son  hath  a  more  excellent 
name  than  the  angels,  the  apostle  proceeds  to 
state  from  the  Old  Testament  what  had  been  said 
respecting  the  Son,  and  what  had  been  said  re- 
specting the  angels  : — 

"  For  unto  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at  any 
time,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  dny  have  \  begotten 
thee  ?  And  again,  I  will  be  to  him  a  Father,  and 
he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son. — And  again,  w^hen  he 
bringeth  in  the  first  begotten  into  the  world,  he 
saith,  And  let  ail  the  angels  of  God  worship  him. 
And  of  the  angels  he  saith,  Who  maketh  his  angels 
spirits,  and  his  ministers  a  flame  of  fire.  But  un- 
to the  Son  he  saith,  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ev- 
er and  ever  :  a  sceptre  ol  righteousness  is  the  scep- 
tre of  thy  kingdom.  Thou  hast  loved  righteous- 
ness, and  haled  iniquity;  therefore  God^  even  thy 
God,  hath  anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness, 
above  thy  fellows." 

Here  we  find  the  name  which  the  Son  of  God  has 
by  INHERITANCE,  which  IS  better  than  the  name 
given  to  angels.*  The  self-existent  God  has  b(  en 
pleased  to  dignify  his  own  and  only  Son  with  his 
own  divitiC  name.  And  we  find  al^o  a  reason  as- 
signed lor  this  Divine  honour  : — "  Thou  hast  loved 
righteousness  and  hated  iniquity  ;  therefore  God, 
EVEN  THY  God,  hath  anointed  thee  with  the  oil 
of  gladness  above  thy  fellows." 

If  we  consider  Christ  as  truly  the  Son  of  God,  in 
the  sense  which  has  been  explained,  and  by  inhe- 
ritance and  the  pleasure  of  the  Father  possessing 
Divine  dignity  and  Divine  titles,  the  whole  pas- 
sage appears  perfectly  natural.    But  if  we  consider 

*  On  farther  consideration,  it  is  believed^  that  the  "  name" 
which  Christ  has  by  '•'' inheritance''^  is  Son.  But  still  the  name 
Cfod  he  possesses  by  the  pleasure  of  his  "  God  and  Father." 


and  Glory  of  Christ*  99 

the  Son  as  personally  the  self-existent  and  indc- 
pcndeiil  God,  most  serious  difficulties  immedibtely 
arise... .Why  is  he  called  God's  Son?  Why  is  he 
uniformly  spoken  of  in  contradistirjction  to  the  self- 
existent  God  ?  Why  is  he  spoken  of  as  having  a 
God  who  hath  anointed  him  with  ihe  oil  of  glad- 
ness above  his  fellows?  What  God  could  "thus 
anoint  the  self-existent  God  ? 

The  passage  under  consideration  is  not  the  only 
one  in  which  the  name  God  is  applied  to  the  Son. 
Nor  is  this  the  only  passage  in  vvhich  the  Son  of 
God  is  represented  as  having  a  God  as  well  as  a 
Father.  Christ  said  to  his  disciples,  "  1  go  to  mi/ 
Father  and  to  i/our  Father^  to  mt/  God  and  to  yotir 
God.^^  And  in  the  epistles  we  several  times  read 
of  ''  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ'''^ 
— and  "the  God  oi  ouv  Lord  Jesus  Christ,^''  As 
Solomon,  after  he  was  crowned,  had  ^  father  2iV\d  a 
king^  so  Christ,  on  the  throne  of  the  universe,  had 
a  Father  and  a  God.  if  Christ  had  been  the  self- 
existent  God,  it  would  have  been  just  as  proper  to 
speak  of  the  God  of  the  Father^  as  the  God  of  the 
Son,  But  if  he  he  truly  the  Son  of  God,  and  as 
such  sustains  Diviae  offices  and  bears  Divine  titles, 
then  no  difficulty  results  from  his  being  called 
Lord,  Saviour,  or  even  God.  For  these  titles, 
as  borne  by  the  Son,  do  not  import  personal  self- 
existence,  but  what  he  is  as  the  Son  of  Got?,  and 
by  the  pleasure  of  his  Father. 

After  Solomon  had  been  anointed  king  by  or- 
der of  David,  Jonathan  reported  the  matter  to 
Adonijah,  and  said,  "  Verily  our  lord,  king  David, 
hath  made  Solomon  king."  And  it  is  not  impro- 
bable that  this  event  was  typical  of  the  conduct  of 
God  in  anointing  and  exalting  his  Son.  And  as 
truly  as  David  constituted  his  son  Solomon  to  be  king^ 


100  On  the  real  Divinity 

so  truly  halh  our  heavenly  Father  consiilvtedui%  Son 
to  be  Saviour,  Lor  J  and  God,  He  halh  invested  him 
with  Divine  lulness  and  Divine  authority,  and  con- 
ferred on  him  his  own  Divine  names  and  titles.  If 
the  Son  of  God  did  not  possess  a  fulness  adequate  to 
his  authority,  we  might  view  the  Divine  nanies,  as 
applied  to  him,  as  high  sounding  and  empty  titles; 
but  while  we  are  assured  that  oil  power,  or  author- 
ity, is  given  unto  him  in  heaven  and  earth,  we  are 
also  assured  that  "it  halh  pleased  the  Father  that 
in  him  all  fulness  should  dwell  ;  and  that  *'  in  him 
dwellelh  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily." 

When,  therefore,  I  speak  of  the  Son  as  called 
Saviour^  Lord  and  God,  on  the  ground  of  a  consti- 
tuted character,  1  wish  to  be  understood  as  imply- 
ing not  merely  official  character,  but  such  a  jiertect 
union  of  the  Son  with  the  Father,  that  in  him  pro- 
perly dwells  the  infinite  fulness  and  all-sufficiency 
of  God,  so  that  in  respect  to  fulness  as  well  as  au- 
thority he  is  one  with  the  Father. 

We  must  suppose,  that  God  is  the  best  judge  of 
the  ground  on  which  he  styled  his  Son  God.  And 
we  know,  from  the  scriptures,  ihBl  anointing  with 
oil  was  an  appointed  ceremony  of  induction  to  of- 
fice. Thus  prophets,  priests,  and  kings,  were  in- 
augurated by  the  command  of  God.  The  oil  was 
an  instituted  type  or  emblem  of  the  Spirit  j  and 
these  ancient  inaugurations  were  probably  typi- 
cal of  the  inauguration  of  Christ  as  the  promis- 
ed Messiah ;  on  which  occasion  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  had  been  typified  by  the  holy  oil,  descended 
and  abode  upon  him.  And  in  the  address  of  the 
Father  to  the  Son,  in  which  the  Son  is  called  God, 
the  ceremony  of  anointing  is  distinctly  brought  into 
view,  to  show  that  it  is  on  the  ground  of  a  consti- 
tuted character  that  the  Son  is  called  God—"  There- 


atid  Glory  of  Chrisl.  •  101 

fore  God,  even  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee  with 
the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows." 

John  the  Baptist,  in  his  testiinony  concerning 
the  Son  of  God,  says,  ''  He  whom  God  hath  sent, 
speaketh  the  words  of  God  ;  and  give«s  this  as  the 
reason  why  the  words  that  he  speaketh  are  the 
words  of  God,  "  For  God  giveth  not  the  Siirit  by 
measure  unto  hini.^''  And  Peter,  in  his  discourse 
at  the  house  of  Cornelius,  mentions  "How  God 
anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  w'llh  power  ;'>''  by  which  we  may  un(Jerstand, 
that  in  this  anointings  the  Son  was  endued  with  Di- 
vine fulness^  and  invested  with  Divine  authority. 

In  expressing  Divine  commands,  in  foretelling 
events,  and  in  performitig  miracles,  the  Son  of  God 
adopted  a  style  of  speaking,  very  different  from 
that  of  the  prophets.  He  did  not  preface  what  he 
uttered  with  a  "Thus  sailh  the  Lord;"  but  his 
usual  style  was,  "  I  say  unto  you" — "  1  will,  be 
thou  clean,"  &f".  Oii  this  ground,  an  argument 
has  often  bepn  formed,  in  proof  of  the  hyj)othesis 
that  Christ  was  personally  the  inflependent  God. 
In  reference  to  this  argument,  I  would  ask, 

1.  Was  it  not  to  be  exftected  that  God's  own 
Son  would  adopt  a  style  corresponding  with  his 
dignity  as  the  Son  of  God?  Would  you  not  expect 
that  a  king's  son  should  adopt  a  ?>{fiQ  'v\  speaking, 
ditferent  from  an  ordinary  ambassacfor? — But, 

2,  I  would  ask,  whether  justice  has  been  done 
in  urging  the  above  argument  ?  It  is  indeed  a  truth, 
that  Chrisl  spake  in  a  style  different  from  the  pro- 
phets ;  but  it  is  also  true,  that  no  prophet  was  ever 
more  particular  and  careful  than  Christ  was,  to  let 
it  be  known  rhat  he  came  not  in  his  own  name,  hut 
in  the  name  of  God  the  Father ;  that   the   words 

9* 


102  On  the  real  Divinity 

which  he  spake,  he  spake  not  of  himself;  and  that 
the  Father  in  him  did  the  work.  How  often  did 
he  declare,  in  the  most  unequivocal  manner,  to  this 
effect,  "  I  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine 
own  will,  but  the  will  of  the  Father  that  sent  me." 
— "  I  proceeded  forth  and  came  from  God  ;  neither 
came  I  of  myself,  but  he  sent  me." — "  The  words 
that  I  speak,  I  speak  not  of  myself." 

If  John  has  given  us  a  true  account,  Christ  dis- 
tinctly mentioned  his  being  smt  of  the  Father, 
Dearly  forty  times.  How,  sir,  has  it  come  to  pass, 
that  these  ideas  have  been  so  much  kept  out  of 
view  in  urging  the  argument  from  Christ's  peculiar 
style  of  speaking  ?  I  would  by  no  means  suggest 
a  suspicion  of  dishonesty  ;  but  is  there  not  evi- 
dence of  a  strong  prepossession,  by  which  good 
men  have  been  led  to  overlook  some  things  which 
are  of  weight,  and  to  form  their  arguments  without 
due  consideration? 


LETTER  V. 

How  the  Son  of  God  became  the  Son  of  Man* 

REV,    SIR, 

According  to  your  theory,  the  Son  of  God  be- 
came the  Son  of  Man  "  by  taking  to  himself  a 
true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul,"  or  a  proper 
Man.  It  is  my  object  to  prove,  that  the  Son  of 
God  became  the  Son  of  Man  by  becoming  himself 
the  SOUL  of  a  human  body. 


and  Glorj/  of  Christ,  103' 

It  has  been  supposed,  that  the  Son  of  God  could 
not,  with  any  propriety,  be  called  a  man  on  the 
hypothesis  I  have  stated.  But  could  he  not  with 
much  more  propriety  be  called  a  man,  if  he  be- 
came the  soul  of  a  human  body^  than  on  the  hypo- 
thesis that  he  became  united  to  a  proper  human 
soul  and  body  or  a  proper  man  ?  if  the  Son  of  God 
became  united  to  a  proper  man,  the  Son  and  the 
Twcfw  were  two  distinct  intelligences,  and  the  union 
would  be  properly  a  union  of  two  persons. 

Besides,  you  say  that  this  union  does  not  imply 
that  the  divine  nature  became  human  nature^  nor 
that  the  human  nature  became  divine  nature^  nor 
that  these  two  natures  were  mixed  or  blended. 
These  positions,  if  I  mistake  not,  are  precisely  of 
the  same  import  as  the  following — The  Son  of  God 
did  not  become  man,  nor  did  the  man  become  the 
Son  of  God,  nor  were  the  Son  of  God  and  the  man 
mixed  or  blended.  For  so  far  as  I  can  discern  any 
meaning  to  your  language,  the  Son  of  God  is  the 
same  as  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  and  the  man 
the  same  as  the  human  nature.  It  will  hence  ap- 
pear, that  the  Son  of  God  did  not  become  man,  but 
only  became  united  to  a  man. 

There  are  a  multitude  of  considerations  and  pas- 
sages of  Scripture,  which  may  be  adduced  in  sup- 
port of  the  hypothesis  that  the  Son  of  God  became 
Man,  or  the  Son  of  Man,  by  becoming  the  soul  of 
a  human  body.  Out  of  many,  I  select  the  follow- 
ing ;— 

1.  If  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  had  been  united  to  a 
second  divine  and  self-existent  Person,  we  might 
reasonably  expect  to  find,  that,  in  some  of  his  dis- 
courses, he  had  mentioned  that  union.  But  in  no 
instance  did  he  intimate  that  he  was  united  to  any 
divine  person  but  the  Father.     His  uuion  with  the 


104  On  the  real  Divinity 

Father  he  often  mentioned,  and  he  affirmed  that  it 
was  the  Father  in  him  that  did  the  work. 

2.  Had  the  Son  of  God  become  man  in  no  other 
sense  than  *'  by  taking  to  himself  a  true  body  and 
reasonable  soul,"  and  had  he  been,  as  jou  suppose, 
personally  the  independent  God,  he  could  not  with 
any  propriety  have  asserted  h\s personal  dependence. 
For  however  dependent  his  human  nature  might  be, 
as  a  person  he  would  have  been  independent  and 
self- sufficient.  Yet  it  is  believefl,  we  have  no  ac- 
count of  any  other  person  in  the  S(  riptures,  who 
said  so  much  of  his  personal  dependence  as  did  Je- 
sus Christ  the  Son  of  God.  In  the  mo'^t  personal 
and  most  emphatical  manner  he  declared.  '- /  can 
of  mine  own  self  do  nothing.'''^  It  is  rpmarkuHe, 
that  any  of  the  friends  ot  Christ  should  think  it 
dishonourary  to  him  to  say  that  he  was  dependent, 
while  he  himself  so  constantly  affirmed  his  depen- 
dence on  the  Father.  Not  only  did  Christ  abun- 
dantly assert  his  personal  dependence  on  the  Fath- 
er, but  as  a  Person,  and  as  a  Son,  he  prayed  to 
the  Father  fur  himself  as  the  Son  of  God.  See 
his  solemn   pra\er,  John  xvti. 

3.  When  angel""  hnve  appeared  '' in  the  likeness 
of  men,"  they  have  been  denominated  eithf  r  angels 
cr  men,  just  as  the  Lord  Jesus  is  soaietimes  call*^d 
the  Son  of  God,  and  sometimes  the  S<m  of  Man, 
The  angels  who  appeared  to  Lot,  ir)  Sodom,  me^ 
in  the  same  narrative,  several  timfs  called  angels, 
and  several  times  called  men,  I'he  prophet  Dan- 
iel, in  spenkinii  i»f  'he  ani/el  who  appeared  to  him, 
says,  "  The  Man  Gabriel  whom  I  had  seen  in  the 
vision. 

Shall  we,  sir,  ^^ccuse  Moses  and  Daniel  of  great 
impropriety,  in  spe^ikinir  nf  th<  se  [)ersonages  some- 
times as  an§els,  and  sumctimes  as  menP  They  were 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  106 

callpcl  men,  because  they  appeared  "  in  the  like- 
ness of  rnen,^"^  that  is,  in  an  embodied  state.  It  a 
transient  or  an  occasional  residence  in  bodies  of 
human  form  might  be  sufficient  ground  on  which 
to  denominate  angels  men,  a  permanent  residence 
in  a  human  body  might  be  sufficient  ground  on 
which  to  denominate  the  Son  of  God  the  Son  of 
Man. 

4.  '^I'he  scripture  accounts  of  tlie  incarnation  of 
the  Son  of  God  contain  no  iniiniation  that  he  took 
.*'to  himself  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul;" 
but  the  contrary  is  {)lainly  suggested. — ^' The  word 
was  made  flesh."  John  i.  14.  "  God  had  sworn  to 
David,  that  of  the  fruit  of  his  loins,  accorditig  to  the 
fiesh^  he  would  raise  up  Christ  to  sit  upon  his 
throne."  Acts  ii.  30. — "  Concerning  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord,  who  was  made  of  the  seed  of  Da- 
vid, according  to  the  flesh.''''  Rom.  i.  3.  "  Whose 
are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom,  as  concerning  the 
flesh,  Christ  came."     Rom.  ix.  5. 

Why  were  these  phrases  inserted,  according  to 
the  flesh,  or  concerning  the  fl.esh,  but  to  teach  us  that 
our  Lord  is  ot  tiie  seed  of  Abraham  and  David  only 
according  to  the  flesh,  or  in  respect  to  th*'  flesh  ? 

In  the  first  chapter  of  the  ejiisile  to  the  Hebrews, 
the  writer  gives  us  a  most  exalted  character  of  the 
Son  of  God  ;  and  in  the  second,  he  represents  his 
incarnation.  "  For  as  much  then  as  the  children  are 
partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  like- 
wise took  part  of  the  same." — Again,  "  Wherefore, 
in  all  things,  it  behooved  him  to  be  made  like  unto 
his  brethren,  that  he  might  be  a  merciful  and  faith- 
ful High  Priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  to  make 
reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the  people  :  For  in 
that  he  himself  hath  suffered,  being  tempted,  he  is 
able  to  succour  them  that  are  tempted." 


106  On  the  real  Divinity 

How,  Piir,  are  the  children  partakers  of  flesh  and 
blood  ?  Is  it  by  taking  to  thenisclves  true  bodies 
and  reasonable  souls  ?  Is  it  not  rather  by  being 
reasonable  souls  of  human  bodies  ?  Or  by  b^ing  in 
an  embodied  state,  in  union  uiih  Jlesh  and  blood  P 
l\  so,  then  lor  Christ  to  become  like  his  brethren, 
a  paitaker  ot  flesh  and  blood,  he  mueit  become  in 
an  embodied  stale,  or  become  the  soul  of  a  human 
body.  Before  his  incarnation,  he  was  not  like  to 
the  seed  of  Abraham  in  respect  to  partaking  of 
flesh  and  blood  ;  but  it  behooved  him  so  to  be,  that 
he  might  be  a  merciful  High  Priest  ;  and  that  by 
being  himself  subjV ct  to  those  temptations  which 
result  from  a  union  with  flesh  and  blood,  he  nright 
know  how  to  sympathize  with  us,  and  to  succour 
those  who  are  tempted.  But  if  his  incarnation  im- 
plied no  more  than  his  becoming  united  to  a  man, 
how  was  he  prepared  by  this  to  be  "'  touched  with 
the  feelings  of  our  infirmities  ?" 

In  the  tenth  chapter  of  the  same  epistle,  it  is  re- 
presented, that  when  the  Son  was  about  to  come 
into  the  world,  he  said  to  his  fatlier,  "  Sacrifice 
and  offering  thou  wouldst  not,  but  a  Body  hast  thou 
prepared  me."  The  Son  did  not  say,  "a  true 
body  and  reasonable  soul"  hast  thou  prepared  me  ; 
nor,  a  Man  hast  thou  prepared  me  ;  but  "  a  Body 
hast  thou  prepared  me;"  And  does  not  his  lan- 
guage plainly  suggest,  that  he  himself  was  to  be  the 
Soul  of  that  Body  which  God  had  prepared  ?  Let 
commofi  sense  dr  cide  the  question. 

5.  There  is  abundant  evidence,  that  the  Person 
who  called  himself  the  Son  of  Man,  had  pre-exis- 
tence;  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  pre-exist- 
ed otherwise  than  as  the  Son  of  God,  or  the  Aigcl 
of  God. 

That  the  Son  of  God  had  pre-existence,  is  not 
doubted  by  you  ;  and  it  is  amazing,  that  it  should 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  107 

be  denied  by  any  man  who  professes  a  respert  for 
the  oracles  of  God.  In  addition  to  all  that  is  said 
of  the  Son  of  God  as  the  Creator,  or  the  one  by 
whom  God  created  all  things;  and  all  thai  is  said 
of  him  as  the  Ar.grI  of  God  ;  and  all  that  is  said 
of  the  glory  which  he  had  with  the  Father  before 
the  world  was;  and  all  that  is  said  of  his  incar- 
nation ;  there  are  a  nmltitude  of  texts  which  natu- 
rally iaijiort  his  pre-rxistencc. 

His  prp-exisience  is  nattirally  implied  in  tije  nil* 
m<  rous  passages  which  speak  of  God's  sending  his 
Son  into  the  world,  and  of  God's  giving  his  Son. 
The  same  idea  is  implied  in  all  thai  Christ  said  of 
his  coming  forth  from  the  Father,  and  coming  down 
from  heaven,  and  coming  forth  from  God,  Such 
representaiions  naturally  import  that  he  tiad  exist- 
ed with  the  Father,  with  God,  and  in  heaven,  be- 
fore he  was  sent,  or  before  he  came  into  the  world. 

To  the  unbrlH'vi.')g  Jews  Christ  said,  "If  God 
were  your  father,  y*^-  would  love  me  :  for  I  [proceed- 
ed forth  and  came  from  God  ;  neither  came  I  of 
myself,  bijt  he  sent  me."  To  his  disciples  he  said, 
"  For  the  Father  himself  lovelh  you,  because  ye 
have  loved  me,  and  have  believed  that  1  came  out 
from  God:  I  came  forth  from  th;^  Father,  and  am 
come  into  the  world  :  again  1  leave  Uie  world,  and 
go  to  the  Father." 

These  passages  Christ  spake  as  the  Son  of  Gou  ; 
and  they  plainly  import  two  things — 

1.  That  the  Son  is  a  heirig  distinct  from  God,  so 
distinct  that  he  coald  proceed  forth  and  come  from 
God. 

2.  That  the  Son  existed  with  God  before  he  came 
into  the  world. 

Similar  things  Christ  spake  of  himself  as  the 
Son  of  Man.     On  another  occasion  he  said  much 


108  On  the  real   Diviniiy 

of  his  being  the  bread  of  God  which  comelh  doWB 
from  heaven,  John  vi.  In  this  disconrse  he  styled 
himself  the  Son  of  Man.  Soo»e  of  his  disciples 
were  displeased  wiih  what  he  said  on  this  occasion. 
**  When  Jesus  knew  in  himself  that  his  disciples 
murnnured  at  it,  he  said  unto  them,  Doth  this  of- 
fend you  ?  What,  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of 
Man  ascend  up  where  he  was  before?'^'' 

These  several  passages,  compared  together, 
plainly  import  not  only  (he  pre-exislence  of  Jesus 
Christ,  but  the  identity  of  the  Son  of  God  and  the 
Son  of  Man. 

6.  The  personal  identity  of  the  Son  of  God  and 
the  Son  of  Man  is  plainly  implied  in  the  declara- 
tion of  St.  Paul,  Eph.  iv,  10.  Speaking  of  the  as- 
cension of  Christ,  he  savs,  ''He  that  descended  is 
the  same  also  that  ascended  tip  far  above  all  heav- 
ens, that  he  might  fill  all  things."  You  will,  sir, 
it  is  believed,  admit  that  it  was  the  Son  of  God  who 
descended,  and  the  Son  of  Man  who  ascended.  And 
if  he  that  descended  '\s  the  same  who  ascended,  then 
the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of  Man  are  the  same. 
Of  course,  the  Son  of  God  became  the  Son  of  Man 
by  becoming  the  soul  of  a  human  borjy. 

7.  You  will  grant  that  it  was  the  Son  of  Man  or 
the  Man  Christ  Jesus,  who  died  on  the  cross,  who 
was  raised  from  »he  dead,  and  exalted  at  the  right 
hand  of  God.  But  all  these  tilings  are  distinctly 
and  abundantly  affirmed  of  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God, 
or  as  our  Lord  and  Saviour.  1  have  no  occasion 
to  produce  any  passages  of  Scripture  to  prove  that 
these  things  are  said  of  Christ  as  the  Son  of  Man, 
but  1  may  produce  some  passages  to  show  thai  these 
same  things  are  affirmed  of  God's  •  wn  Son,  by 
whom  he  made  the  worlds,  and  the  one  who  is  now 
our  Lord  and  Saviour. 


and  Glory  of  Christ*  109 

*'  He  (hat  spared  not  his  own  Sow."  Rom.  viii. 
32.  *'  Concerning  his  Son  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord,  which  was  made  of  the  seed  of  David,  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh,  ^nd  declared  to  be  the  Son  of 
God  with  power,  according  to  the  spirit  of  holi- 
ness, 6^  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,''''  Rom.  i. 
3,  4. — "'  Who  raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the 
dead,'^''  Rora.  iv.  24.  *'  And  God  hath  both  raised 
up  the  Lord,  and  will  also  raise  us  up  by  his  own 
power."  1  Cor.  vi.  14 — *'  Wait  for  his  Son  from 
heaven,  whom  he  raised  from  the  dead,''"'  1  Thes. 
i.  10. — '^  Now  the  God  of  peace,  that  brought  again 
from  the  dead  our  Lord  Jesus,  that  great  Shep- 
herd of  the  sheep."  Heb.  xiii.  20. 

In  these  passages  it  is  plaitdy  represented,  that 
it  was  in  truth  that  Being,  who  is  called  the  Son  of 
God,  our  Lord,  and  the  great  Shepherd  of  the  sheep, 
who  personally  died  on  the  cross,  and  was  raised 
from  the  dead  by  the  power  of  God. 

In  the  first  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Colos- 
sians,  and  in  the  very  connexion  in  which  the 
work  of  creation  is  attributed  to  Christ,  he  is  styled 
the  ^' first  born  from  the  dead,  that  in  all  things  he 
might  have  the  pre-eminence. 

Respecting  this  same  Son  our  LorJ,  David  said 
"  the  Lord  Sd'id  unto  my  Lord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right 
hand  till  I  make  thy  foes  thy  footstool."  Of  the 
same  Son  of  God  it  is  said,  ''  when  he  had  by  him- 
self purged  our  sins,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of 
the  MAJESTY  on  high."  Heb.  i.  3. — B  it  after  this 
Son  had  become  united  to  the  body  which  God 
h-id  prepared,  he  was  often  called  a  7nan,  or  ihe  Son 
of  man.  Therefore  the  same  writer  says,  "  but  this 
MAN,  after  he  had  offered  one  s;irrifice  for  sins  for 
ever,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  ot  God."  Heb. 
X.  12. 

10 


110  On  the  real  Divinity 

8.  Additional  evidence  of  the  identity  of  the  Son 
of  God  and  the  Son  of  Man,  may  appear  from  what 
is  said  of  Christ  as  the  Lord  and  the  Son  the  Root 
and  the  Offspring  of  David, 

It  was  the  belief  of  the  Jews  founded  on  pro- 
phecy, that  the  Messiah  should  be  the  son  of  Da- 
vid.— "  While  the  Pharisees  were  gathered  to- 
gether, Jesus  asked  them  saying.  What  think  ye 
of  Christ  ?  Whose  son  is  he  ?  They  say  unto 
him  the  son  of  David.  He  saith  unto  them,  How 
then  doth  David  in  spirit  call  him  Lord,  saying, 
the  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord,  sit  thou  on  my  right 
hand  till  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool?  If 
David  then  call  him  Lord,  how  is  he  his  son?" 
Matt.  xxii.  41—45. 

This,  sir  was  to  the  Pharisees  an  unanswerable 
question  ;  nor  do  1  see  that  any  rational  answer 
can  be  given  to  it  on  your  theory.  For  the  ques- 
tion plainly  supposes  the  Lord  of  David  and  the 
♦Son  of  David  to  be  but  one  intelligent  Being.  But 
your  hypothesis  would  be,  that  the  Lord  of  David 
was  united  to  a  man  who  was  the  Son  of  David. 
But  could  the  Lord  of  David  be  thus  the  Son  o\  Da- 
vid ?  No,  sir,  the  Lord  of  David  would  be  one 
person  and  the  son  of  David  another.  But  if  the 
Lord  of  David  became  the  soul  of  a  body  which 
was  of  the  seed  of  David,  then  would  Christ  be  both 
David's  Son  and  David's  Lord, 

The  other  text  to  be  considered,  is  this,  "  I  am 
the  Root  and  the  Offspring  of  David." 

You  will  observe,  that  in  this  passage,  Christ 
speaks  \i\2i personal  manner,  and  as  one  individual 
intelligence.  He  does  not  say,  /am  the  Root  of 
David,  and  the  man  united  to  me  is  the  OrrspRiNG 
of  David.  But  as  one,  and  only  one  intelligence,  he 
says,  "/am  the  Root  and  the  Offspring  of  Da- 
vid;' 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  1 1 1 

0.  in  exhibiting  a  contrast  between  Adam  and 
Christ,  the  apostle  Paul  says,  ''  the  first  man  is  of 
the  earth  earthy,  the  second  man  is  the  Lord  from 
heaven.''  What  is  here  asserted  of  Christ  accords 
with  his  numerous  declarations  that  he  came  down 
from  heaven,  and  came  forth  from  God.  The 
apostle  does  not  say  that  the  second  man  was  iinit' 
ed  to  the  Lord  from  heaven  ;  but,  the  second  man 
IS  the  Lord  from  heaven.  Suppose,  sir,  that  Da- 
niel had  said  in  some  of  his  writings,  The  man 
whom  I  saw  in  the  vision  was  Gabriel  from  heaven; 
what  idea  would  his  words  have  suggested  ? 
Would  you  not  have  supposed  that  Gabriel  ap- 
peared in  an  embodied  state,  or  in  the  likeness  of 
a  man?  You  will  be  pleased  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion, and  make  the  application. 

10.  Christ  stated  to  his  disciples  this  question, 
"  Whom  do  men  say  that  /,  the  Son  of  Man,  am  ?" 
They  answered.  He  then  stated  another,"  Whom 
say  ye  that  /am  ?"  Peter  replied,  "  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.^'^ — This  answer 
Christ  approved  in  the  most  decided  manner.  And 
you  will  be  pleased,  sir,  to  notice  the  definite  man- 
ner in  which  the  question  was  proposed  and  answer- 
ed. Christ,  calling  himself  the  Son  of  Man,  de- 
mands their  opinion  concerning  him.  The  answer 
is  as  definite  as  the  question,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God.'^'^  Therefore  the  Son  of 
Man  is  the  Son  of  the  living  God.  The  Son  of  God 
was  not  united  to  the  Son  of  Man  ;  but  the  Son  of 
God  became  the  Son  of  Man  by  becoming  the  soul 
of  a  human  body.  Thus  the  second  man  was  the 
Lord  from  heaven. 


112  On  the  real  Divinity 


POSTSCRIPT. 

Mr.  Caleb  Alexander,  in  his  remarks  on  Mr, 
Emlyn,  has  taken  ground  different  Irom  yours. 
He  says  ^'  Christ  is  properly  a  complex  Person, 
He  has  a  distinct  human  personality  and  a  distinct 
Divine  personality — and  ^q\  so  united  as  to  make  a 
eomplex  Person,  Christ  has  a  proper  Divine  intel- 
ligence and  a  proper  human  intelligence,^'^  p.  57. 
He  also  states  that  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God 
in  reference  to  his  humanity — "  his  lowest  capacity 
and  character" — That  he  is  called  the  Son  oj  God^ 
because  his  "  human  nature  was  created  by  an  im- 
wec?iare  act."    p.  43,  44. 

These  positions  are  contradicted  by  Dr.  Hopkins, 
in  a  very  decided  manner.  And  if  I  mistake  not, 
they  are  contradicted  by  the  general  tenour  of  the 
gospel.  Those  who  may  have  adopted  the  hypo- 
thesis of  Mr.  Alexander,  will  be  likely  to  suppose 
that  my  labour  has  been  in  vain  in  attempting:  to 
prove  that  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of  Man 
mean  the  same  intelligence.  For  this  they  would 
have  admitted  without  proof. 

Though  I  respect  Mr.  Alexander,  I  cannot  say 
that  I  am  any  better  pleased  with  his  theory  than 
I  am  with  yours.  But  as  I  do  not  learn  that  his 
views  have  been  generally  adopted,  I  shall  say- 
but  little  respecting  them. 

In  respect  to  personality^  I  must  think  that  he 
takes  more  correct  ground  than  Dr.  Hopkins  :  for 
if  it  be  true,  that  in  Christ  a  Divine  Person  is  unit- 
ed to  a  proper  man,  no  reason  can  be  given  why 
they  should  not  be  considered  as  two  Persons. 
But  will  it  not  plainly  result  from  Mr.  Alexander's 
theory,  that  He  who  died  for  our  offences  was 
strictly  a  human  Person^  and  no  more,  than  a  man  ? 


and  Glory  of  Chris t»  113 

That  Person  might  indeed  be  the  Son  of  God  in 
his  sense  of  the  terms ;  for  in  his  view  the  Son  of 
God  was  no  more  than  a  man — a  man  united  to  a 
Divine  Person.  But  why  is  this  man  called  God's 
own  and  only  Son,  the  only  begotten  of  the  Fa- 
ther ? — He  was  "  created  by  an  immediate  act,'- 
says  Mr.  Alexander.  And  so  was  Adam ;  and  so, 
probably,  were  the  angels.  How  then  is  Christ 
God's  ONLY  Son  ?  Why  is  it  represented  as  so 
great  a  display  of  God's  love,  to  give  such  a  Son 
to  die  for  us?  If  there  be  any  great  display  of 
Divine  love  on  his  theory,  must  it  not  be  found  in 
this,  that  God  accepted  the  obedience  unto  death, 
of  one  man,  as  an  atonement  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world  ?  As  much  might,  perhaps,  be  said, 
had  Moses  died  for  the  sins  of  the  world. 

But  if  Christ  be  called  the  Son  of  God  in  respect 
to  his  ^^  lowest  capacity  and  character,"  why  did 
HE  never  speak  of  his  having  a  higher  character 
than  that  of  the  Son  of  God  ?  How  came  the  Jews 
to  accuse  Christ  of  blasphemy^  for  saying  that  he 
was  the  Son  of  God  ?  Would  the  Jews  ever  have 
thought  of  accusing  him  of  blasphemy  for  saying 
that  he  was  "  created  by  an  immediate  act  ?"  or 
for  saying,  in  the  same  sense  that  Adam  was,  1 
am  the  Son  of  God  ?  Christ  received  worship  as 
the  Son  of  God  ;  was  it  on  th^  ground  that  he  was 
''  created  by  an  immediate  act  ?" 


JO* 


114  On  the  real  Divinity 


LETTER  VI. 

The  preceding  doctrines  allimplied  in  PhilippiansW, 
5—11. 

REV.   SIR, 

No  portion  of  Scripture  has,  perhaps,  been 
more  abundantly  quoted,  nor  more  fully  relied  on, 
by  Athanasian  writers,  than  Philippians  ii.  6. 
This  text,  therefore,  with  six  other  verses  in  con- 
nexion, I  shall  attempt  to  examine.  And  I  flatter 
myself  that  you  will  be  convinced  that  the  Athana- 
sian iheor)  can  have  no  support  from  this  passage  ; 
and  that,  in  it,  is  fairly  implied  several  of  the  pro- 
positions which  I  have  aimed  to  establish. 

The  verses  to  be  considered  are  the  following: 

5.  '^  Let  this  mind  be  in  you,  which  was  also  in 
Christ  Jesus ; 

6.  Who  being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not 
rol'bery  to  be  equal  w^ith  God  : 

7.  But  made  himself  of  no  reputation,  and  took 
upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the 
likeness  of  men  : 

8.  And  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  hum- 
bled himself,  and  became^obedient  unto  death,  even 
the  ueath  of  the  cross, 

9.  Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted  him, 
and  ^wen  him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name  : 

10.  Th:U  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should 
bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  thing^s  in  earth,  and 
things  urjder  the  earth  ; 

11.  And  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Fa- 
ther." 

In  the  preceding  verses,  the  apo&tle  had,  in  the 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  \  1 5 

most  affectionate  manner,  exhorted  Christians  to 
humility,  condescension,  and  benevolence.  To  en- 
force his  exhortation,  he  nr^ed  the  example  o1  Je- 
sus Christ  who  was  rich,  and  yet  for  our  sakes  he- 
came  poor;  and  the  glorious  reward  which  God 
bestowed  on  him  for  what  he  had  done  and  suffer- 
ed. To  exhibit  the  example  of  Christ  in  a  just  and 
striking  light,  he  dislinctly  brought  into  view  his 
state  of  godlike  splendour  and  majesty  before  his 
incarnation  ^  who  being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought 
it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God. 

The  Son's  being  in  the  form  of  God,  most  prob- 
ably refers  to  the  glory  he  had  with  the  Fathrr  be- 
fore the  world  was.  the  glory  that  he  had  in  God's 
creating  all  things  by  him,  and  the  glory  that  he 
had  as  the  Angel  of  God's  presence. 

But  as  this  verse  is  so  much  relied  on  in  support 
of  the  doctrine  that  the  Son  is  personally  the  srlf- 
existent  God,  it  behooves  me  to  be  the  more  parti- 
cular in  the  examination.  It  is  not,  for  me,  easy 
lo  discern  any  thing  in  the  sixth  verse,  nor  in  the 
whole  connection,  which  has  the  least  appearance 
of  favouring  that  idea,  unless  it  be  found  in  the  im- 
port of  the  word  equal — •'  thought  it  not  robbery  to 
b(*  ^qual  with  God."  The  argument  is  simply  this, 
No  Person  but  the  self  existent  God  can  be  equal 
with  the  self-existent  God  ;  therefore  the  Son  is 
the  Sfdf  existent  God.  And  the  utmost  that  can 
po>5sibly  be  meant,  in  any  case,  by  the  word  equal, 
is  insisited  on  as  the  only  [)0ssible  meaning  of  the 
term  ;  and  that  too  in  the  face  of  the  natural  im- 
port both  of  the  text  itself  and  the  connection. 
For  it  is  urged  that  the  Son  is  absolutely^  essential- 
ly^ and  independently  equal  with  God.  And  this 
con«;truction  of  the  term  -Jeems  to  be  urged  with  as 
much  confidence  as  though  the  word  had  nevei? 


16  On  the  real  Divinity 

been,   and   never   could  be,  used   in    a   qualified 
sense. 

But,  sir,  is  it  a  truth  that  the  word  equal  always 
implies  absolute  equality  in  the  persons  or  ihings 
which  are  said  to  be  equal  ?  Does  it  always  imply 
equality  in  every  respect  ? — And  do  we  not  often  use 
the  term  in  regard  to  two  persons  who  are  sup- 
posed to  be  unequal  in  several  respects  ?  When 
we  say  of  a  son^  that  he  is  equal  with  \\\s  father,  do 
we  ever  mean  that  he  has  existed  as  long  as  his 
father  ?  or  that  he  and  his  father  are  but  one  being  ? 
May  not  a  son  be  as  rich  as  his  father,  and  yet 
have  derived  all  his  riches  from  his  father  ?  Might 
not  Solomon  be  equal  to  David  in  authority^  though 
he  derived  all  his  authority  from  David  ? 

It  is,  sir,  no  robbery  for  a  king's  son  to  think  of 
himself  according  to  the  authority  or  dignity  which 
his  father  hasgiv^-n  him. — David  said,  as  it  is  sup- 
posed, respecting  Ahithophel  his  counsellor,  "  But 
it  was  thou,  a  man,  mine  equals  my  guide,  and  my 
acquaintance. "  Do  you,  sir,  suppose,  that  these 
words  imply  that  Ahithophel  was,  in  all  respects, 
David's  equal?  If  David  had  said,  "  a  man  my 
companion^'^  would  not  this  term  have  expressed 
about  the  same  idea  as  the  word  equal  ?  Why  then 
should  you  be  so  very  positive,  that  the  term  equal^ 
as  used  by  the  apo-^tle  must  mean  an  absolute  equali- 
ty, even  a  co-eternity  of  God  and  his  Son  ?  ^ 

Let  us  notice  another  text  which  evidently  res- 
pects Jesus  Christ :  •'  Awake,  O  sword,  against  my 
shepherd,  and  against  the  man  that  is  my  fellow. ^^ 
May  it  not  be  reasonably  supposed,  that  fellow  in 
this  text  means  the  same  as  equal  in  the  other  ? 

But  the  very  text  in  dispute,  may  f>erhaps  be 
found  to  contain  suffirirnt  evidence  that  Christ  is 
not  the  self.eiistenl  God  ;  and  thai  God  aud  Christ 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  1 1 7 

are  as  distinctly  two  Beings  as  any  other  father  and 
son. 

'*  Who  being  in  the/orm  of  God" — Is  not  Christ 
evidently  spoken  of  in  contradistinction  to  God  ?  If 
he  be  a  Person  in  contradistinction  lo  the  selt-ex- 
isient  God,  he  is  certainly  not  the  self-existent  God, 
unless  there  be  more  Gods  than  one.  If  the  af^os- 
tle  had  been  speaking  of  the  Father  and  had  said 
of  him,  *'  Who  being  in  the/orm  of  God,  thought  it 
not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,"  would  not  such 
a  representation  of  the  Father  have  been  a  manifest 
impropriety  ?  But  if  the  Son  be  the  seif-existent 
God,  such  language  with  respect  to  the  Father 
would  be  as  proper  as  in  respect  to  the  Son. 

By  the  form  of  God,  we  may  understand  the 
same  as  the  similitude  or  image  of  God — Christ  is 
declared  to  be  "  the  image  of  the  invisible  God" — 
"the  express  in:^3gc  of  his  Person."  But  does  not 
every  body  know  that  a  Person  and  ilie  Image  of 
his  Person  are  distinct  objects  ?  and  that  it  is  im- 
possible that  any  Person  should  be  the  image  of 
himself?  Seth  was  the  image  of  Adam  ;  but  he 
was  not  Adam,  nor  was  Adam  and  Seth  the  same 
being. — It  is,  however,  true,  that  an  image  often 
bears  the  name  of  the  Person  represented.  So 
Christ,  by  the  pleasure  of  God,  often  bears  the  Di- 
vine Names  of  his  Father. 

If,  by  the  term  God,  be  intended  three  Persons, 
as  Mr.  Jones  suggests,  then  for  Christ  lo  be  in  the 
form  of  God,  he  must  be  in  the/orm  of  three  Per- 
sons, 

The  terms,  also,  equal  with  God,  plainly  import 
that  Christ  is  a  Person  distinct  from  (jod.  Two 
Persons  are  here  compared  together,  one  of  them  is 
God,  the  other  is  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  of  the  Son 
it  is  asserted,  in  some  sense,  that  he  is  equal  with 


120  On  the  real  Divinity 

reasonable  soul."  But  if  it  has  never  been  known 
among  men  that  two  intelligent  spirits  were  united 
to  one  body,  then  for  the  Son  of  God  to  be  made 
in  the  likeness  ofmen^  and  to  be  lound  in  fashion  as 
a  Man,  he  must  become  the  soul  of  a  human  body. 
And  1  would  propose  it  for  your  most  serious  con- 
sideraiion,  whether  the  Aihanasian  theory  of  the 
incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  does  not  come 
nearer  to  the  scriptural  view  of  possession^  than  it 
does  to  the  scriptural  view  of  incarnation, 

I  do  not,  sir,  mention  this  comparison  with  any 
view  to  make  light  of  the  subject,  or  to  ridicule 
your  theory  ;  but  to  enforce  an  examination.  And 
is  there  not  much  more  evidence,  that,  in  a  case 
of  possession,  Satan  took  ^' to  himself  a  true  body 
and  a  reasonable  soul,"  than  that  Christ  did  so  by 
incarnation  ?  Besides,  in  a  case  of  possession,  it  is 
easy  to  conceive  that  the  Man  might  suflfer,  and 
even  die,  and  yet  Satan  be  not  at  all  affected  by 
the  sufferings  and  death  of  the  Man  :  and  just  so 
you  suppose  that  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  might  suf- 
fer and  die  without  any  pain  to  the  Son  of  God. 

lu  respect  to  uhat  constitutes  a  Man  in  the  pre- 
sent state,  what  more  do  we  know  than  this,  that 
an  intelligent  spirit  is  united  to  a  human  body,  so 
as  to  constitute  one  Person  ?  While  one  affirms  that 
the  souls  of  men  are  properly  produced  by  ordina- 
ry generation,  the  same  as  ihe  body,  another  will 
affirm  that  the  soul  or  spirit  is  the  immediate  work 
of  God,  and  united  to  the  body  in  a  state  of  em- 
bryo. And  these  two,  perhaps,  will  unite  in  con- 
filenlly  affirming,  thai  Christ  could,  with  no  pro- 
priety, be  called  a  Man,  it  his  sotjl  h;'d  pre-existed 
as  the  Son  of  God.  But  if  a  true  body  and  reasona- 
ble soul  united,  will  constitute  a  man,  is  it  not  un- 
safe for  us  to  affirm  that  the  Son  of  God  could  not 


and  Glory  of  Christ.  121 

become  a  Man  by  becoming  the  rational  soul  of  a 
human  body  ? 

\{  I  have  not  misunderstood  him,  Dr.  Emmons 
differs  from  Dr.  Hopkins,  and  supposes  that  the  souls 
of  men  are  not  propagated  like  their  bodies  ;  but 
are  the  immediate  work  of  God,  and  by  him  united 
to  bodies.  To  this  liypothesis  I  do  not  object  ;  I 
am  ignorant  on  the  subject.  But  I  do  not  see 
how  the  Doctor,  or  any  who  agree  with  him,  can 
reasonably  say  that,  on  my  hypothesis,  Maiy  was 
not  properly  the  mother  of  a  son.  For  if  the  Son 
of  God  were  united  to  a  body  in  the  womb  of  Ma- 
ry, and  born  of  her,  he  was,  according  to  Dr.  Em- 
mons's hypothesis,  as  truly  the  son  of  Mary  as 
Seth  was  the  son  of  Eve.  And  it  is  just  as  con- 
ceivable that  a  pre-existent  spirit  should  be  united 
to  an  infant  body,  as  a  spirit  formed  at  the  very 
mon)ent  of  union. 

The  portion  of  Scripture  which  we  have  under 
consideration,  fairly  supports  another  idea  upon 
which  I  have  insisted,  viz.  That  the  Son  of  God 
was  the  re.al  sufferer  on  the  cross.  He  who  had 
bpen  \ni\\e  form  of  God^  when  found  infashionas a 
Man^  humbled  himself,  and  became  obedient  unto 
death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross. 

O  1  your  hypothesis,  the  Son  of  God  was  truly 
and  personally  the  self  existent  God.  I  ask  then, 
Did  the  self-existent  God  become  obedient  unto 
death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross  ?  If  he  did,  who 
supported  th^^.  universe  during  that  event?  And 
woo  raised  him  from  the  dead  .^ 

B  a  you  will  say,  that  it  was  the  Man  Jesus,  to 
whom  the  Son  was  united,  who  became  obedient 
unto  death.  B.it  does  the  apostle  say  any  such 
thing  ?  Tne  obedience  unto  death  he  attributes  to 
the  same  Intelligence  who  had  been  in  the  form  of 
1! 


^22        .  On  the  real  Dhinily 

God.  For  the  Son  of  God  to  suffer^  and  for  a  Man 
to  sxfffer  to  whom  the  Son  was  united,  are  as  dis- 
tinct ideas  as  any  two  which  can  be  named.  And 
what  trace  of  the  latter  idea  do  you  find  in  the  apos- 
tle's description  ? 

The  idea,  that  it  was  truly  the  Son  of  God  who 
ohpijed^  svffered,  and  died,  and  not  another  iritelli* 
gentbein^  to  whom  he  was  united,  is  plainly  as- 
serie:^  in  other  passages  of  scripture— "  Though  a 
SoN,x^€t  lef^.rned  he  obedience  by  the  things  which 
HE  suffered" — "  Who  his  own  sklf  bare  our  sins 
in  his  own  body  on  the  tree" — •'  We  are  reconcil- 
ed to  God  by  the  death  of  ms  Son" — "  But  now 
once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  he  appeared  to 
put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  0/ himself." 

A  vat^t  multitude  of  texts  of  similar  import  might 
be  produced.  And  can  you,  sir,  pretend  that 
these  texts  do  not  support  the  idea  that  the  Son  of 
God,  as  such,  did  really  suffer?  Can  you  find  any 
language  which  could  more  fairly  or  more  fully 
express  the  idea  that  the  Son  of  God  was  the  real 
sufferer  ?  And  shall  we  still  be  told  that  this  same 
Son  was  personally  the  self-existent  God,  and  in- 
capable of  death  or  suffering  ? 

I  cannot,  sir,  but  feel  most  deeply  interested, 
when  I  happen  to  touch  on  this  point :  and  I  hard- 
ly know  when,  where,  or  how  to  dismiss  it.  It 
cannot  be  admitted,  that  God  is  chargeable  with 
any  imposition  on  mankind.  And  yet,  what,  short 
of  an  imposition,  would  it  be  for  him  to  pretend 
that  he  has  so  loved  the  world  as  to  give  his  only 
BEGOTTEN  SoN  to  suffer  an  ignominious  death  for 
our  redemption,  if  at  the  same  time  this  Son  was 
so  spared,  as  your  theory  implies?  So  spared,  that 
all  the  sufferings  of  the  cross  were  endured  by  a 
Man  to  whom  the  Son  was  united  ;  and  the  Son 


and  Glory  of  Christ.  12-3 

himself  as  free  from  pain  and  deatl),  as  though 
there  were  no  such  thing  as  suffering  and  death  in 
the  universe.  No  possible  union  between  the  Son 
of  GoiJ  and  a  iM m  could  render  it  proper  to  call  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  the  Man  the  sufferings  and 
death  of  the  Son^  if  it  be  true  that  the  Son  did  not 
suffer  -nor  die.  And  on  this  hypothesis,  the  suffer- 
ings of  the  IVUn  might  as  well  be  called  the  suf- 
ferings of  Gabriel^  or  the  sufferini^s  of  God  the  Fa- 
ther, as  the  sufferings  of  the  Son  of  God.  Must  the 
sun  be  darkened,  must  the  rocks  be  rent,  must  the 
earth  quake,  and  nature  be  thrown  into  convul- 
sion?, while  the  Son  of  God  suffers  and  dies  on  the 
cross  ?  Must  the  angels  show  so  deep  an  interest 
in  that  scene,  and  must  all  the  world  be  called  on 
to  behold  with  wonder  and  astonishment,  the  height, 
and  depth,  the  length,  and  the  breadth,  of  the  love 
of  God,  as  displayed  in  that  event  ?  Must  all  the 
redeemed  of  the  Lord  unite  in  songs  of  everlasting 
praise  to  the  Son  of  God,  because  he  hath  loved 
them  and  redeemed  them  to  God  by  his  own 
BLOOD  ?  And  can  it,  after  all,  be  made  to  appear 
that  the  Sw  of  God  suffered  not  at  all,  unless  it 
were  by  proxy  or  substitute  ? 

May  it  not,  sir,  be  fairly  inferred  from  your  the- 
ory, that  instead  of  the  Son  of  God's  dying;  for  us, 
that  the  Man  Jesus  died  for  the  Son  of  God?  If 
the  Son  of  God  had  covenanted  with  the  Father  to 
lay  down  his  life  for  us,  but  instead  of  bearing  the 
suffering  himself,  united  himself  to  another  intelli- 
gent  being,  and  caused  the  sufferings  wholly  to  fall 
on  that  Man,  did  not  the  Man  die  for  him  ?  And 
to  whom,  sir,  are  we  indebted  for  the  redemption 
purchased  on  the  cross  ?  To  the  real  sufferer,  or 
to  the  one  who  "  suffered  not  in  the  least  ?" 
To  the  Man  Jesus,  or  to  the  Son  of  God  ? 


m 


124  On  the  real  Divinily 

Most  gladly,  sir,  would  I  recall  every  syllable  1 
ever  uttered  in  support  of  a  theory  so  opposite 
to  the  natural  import  of  scripture  language,  so  de- 
grading to  the  love  of  God,  and  so  dishonorary  tO 
the  Lord  of  glory. 

There  is  another  point  stated  in  the  passage,  viz. 
that  the  high  official  character  which  the  Son  of 
God  sustains  as  Lord  of  the  universe,  is  the  result 
ot'God^s  pleasure,  and  not  any  thing  which  the  Son 
possessed  as  a  self  exisent  or  independent  Being. 
Having  stated  the  abasement  of  the  Son,  his  obedi- 
ence unto  death,  the  apostle  says, 

"  Wherefore  God  haih  highly  exalted  hih,  and 
GIVEN  HIM  a  name  which  is  above  every  name; 
that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow, 
of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things 
under  the  earth  ;  and  that  every  tongue  should 
confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord  to  the  glory  of 
God  the  Father." 

Is  it,  sir,  in  the  power  of  language  to  give  a  more 
full  idea  of  a  constituted  character,  or  of 
DELEGATED  AUTHORITY,  than  is  given  in  these 
words  of  the  apostle  ?  Is  not  the  rrpresentation 
perfect  and  unequivocal,  that  the  same  Being  who 
was  once  in  the  form  of  God,  then  in  fashion  as  a 
man,  who  humbled  hiraselt  and  became  obedient 
unto  death,  was,  in  consequence  of  that  abasement, 
exalted  by  the  self-existent  God,  to  supreme  and 
universal  dominion  ?  Did  not  the  apostle  mean  to 
be  understood  as  representing  extraordinary  and 
real  changes  of  condition  in  Jesus  Christ  the  Son 
of  God?  Did  he  not  mean  to  represent  that  the 
first  change  of  condition  was  a  voluntary  act 
on  the  part  of  Jesus  Christ,  that  he  voluntarily  de- 
scended from  the  form  of  God  to  the  form  of  a 
servant,   and    voluntarily    became   obedient   unto 


and  Glory  of  Christ.  125 

death?  If  this  change  of  condition  was  not  real 
and  voluntary  on  the  part  of  the  Son  of  God,  why 
is  he  exhibited  as  an  example  of  humility,  conde- 
scension, and  benevolence  ?  Why  are  we  requir- 
ed to  let  this  mind  be  in  us  which  was  also  in 
Christ  Jesus  ?  But  if  the  Son  of  God  was  really 
the  subject  of  ihis  change  of  condition,  if  he  did 
really  and  truly  suffer  and  die,  can  he  be  the  Son 
of  God  in  your  sense  of  the  terms  ?  In  other  words, 
can  he  be  the  self-existeiit  God  ? 

In  regard  to  the  second  great  change  of  condi- 
tion— Did  not  the  apostle  mean  to  represent,  that 
for  the  suffering  of  death,  the  Son  of  God  was  re- 
warded by  his  Father  with  transcendent  dignity 
and  glory  ?  Did  he  not  mean  to  represent,  that 
the  very  identical  intelligent  Being,  who  hung  in 
agony,  who  prayed,  who  bled  and  died  on  the 
cross,  was  exalted  by  God  as  Lopd  of  all  ?  But 
if  the  real  sufferer  on  the  cross  was  thus  exalted 
by  God,  then,  according  to  your  own  views,  he 
could  not  be  the  self-existent  God  ;  for  you  cannot 
admit  that  the  self-existent  Person  may  either  be 
the  subject  of  death  or  of  delegated  authority.  The 
self-existent  God  could  no  more  be  raised  to  the 
throne  of  the  universe,  than  he  could  suffer  death 
on  the  cross. 

As  Athanasian  writers  have  found  it  necessary, 
or  convenient,  on  their  theory,  to  attribute  all  that 
is  said  of  the  obedience^  the  suffering  and  death  oi 
the  Son  of  God,  to  the  human  nature,  or  the  man 
Jesus^  to  whom  they  suf)pose  the  Son  of  God  was 
united  ;  so,  on  the  other  hand,  they  have  found  it 
convenient,  or  necessary,  to  attribute  what  is  stat- 
ed in  the  Scriptures  respecting  the  exaltation  of 
the  Son  of  God,  to  the  same  man  or  human  nature. 
As  .they  have  perceived  that  it  must  be  improper 
11* 


126  On  the  real  Divinity 

to  attribute  real  abasement^  suffering  and  death,  io 
the  self-existent  God,  so  it  appears  they  have  per- 
ceived that  it  is  equally  improper  to  suppose  a  self- 
existent  Person  should  be  capable  of  deriving  or 
receiving  e\\\\eT  fulness  or  authority  front)  any  other 
Person.  And  as  they  have  supposed  the  Person 
who  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  to  be  the  self-exis- 
tent  God,  so  they  have  found  it  necessary  to  the 
support  of  that  theory  to  attach  to  this  Person  a 
proper  man,  capable  of  obedience,  suffering,  and 
death,  and  also  of  receiving  communicated  fulness 
and  authority. 

According  to  Mr.  Jones,  and  other  writers,  it 
was  the  man  Jesus,  in  contradistinction  to  the  Son 
ofGody  who  received  the  Spirit  without  measure — 
to  the  man  was  given  the  name  which  is  dboviS 
every  name — it  was  the  man  who  was  ordained  of 
God  to  be  the  Judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead — 
and  the  man  who  was  anointed  with  the  oil  of  glad- 
ness above  his  fellows. 

In  view  of  these  representations,  1  would  propose 
to  your  consideration  (he  following  inquiries  : — 

1.  If  the  Sfmo/Gof?  were  self-existent  and  inde- 
pendent, and  the  man,  or  human  nature  but  an.ap- 
pendage  to  a  self-existent  Person,  what  occasion 
could  there  be  of  any  communications  from  the  Fa- 
ther to  ihat  man  or  human  nature  ?  If,  as  a  Son, 
that  Person  were  the  independent  God,  as  a  Per- 
son he  possessed  independent  fulness  and  authori- 
ty ;  and  no  addition  or  accession  to  his  fulness  or 
authority  could  possibly  be  made  by  the  Father. 

2.  If  the  Son  of  God,  as  such,  were  possessed  of 
independent  and  infinite  fulness  i)nd  authority,  and 
in  addition  to  this  the  Father  gave  the  human  na- 
ture of  the  Son  the  Spirit  without  measure,  and  all 
power  in  heaven  and  earth,  will  it  not  appear  that 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  127 

the  same  Person  was  posspssed,  in  a  two-fold  sense, 
of  infinite  fulness  and  authority  ? 

3.  If  the  Son  of  God  were  united  to  a  proper 
man,  and  that  man,  in  contradistinction  to  the  Son 
of  God,  was  endued  by  the  Father  with  all  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Godhead,  and  invested  with  all  power 
in  heaven  and  earth,  what  is  the  office  or  bvsiness  of 
your  supposed  second  self  existent  Person  ?  Jt  is  be- 
lieved, sir,  that  you  cannot  make  it  appear  that  the 
man  Christ  Jesus  received  any  support,  fulness  or 
authority,  or  even  benefit  from  any  Divine  Person 
but  the  Father — As  a  derived  intelligence,  all  he  re- 
ceived was  from  the  Father.     But, 

4.  If  the  man  Christ  Jesus  may  be  the  recipient 
of  the  Spirit  without  measure,  of  all  the  fulness  of 
ijrod^  if  he  may  be  exalted  with  God's  own  right 
hand,  and  made  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  and  the 
Judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead  ;  I  would  ask 
what  evidence  you  have  of  the  existence  of  a  second 
Person  in  union  with  God,  distinct  from  the  soul  of 
that  MAN  who  was  the  Lord  from  heaven  ? 

5.  If  it  was  in  fact  the  Man  Jesus,  who  was  the 
subject  of  all  the  abasement,  suffering,  and  death, 
which  was   endured  for  our  sakes  ;  and  if  it  was 

.the  Man  who  has  been  the  suhjectof  all  the  exalta- 
tion which  is  in  the  Scriptures  attributed  to  the  Son 
of  God  ;  is  there  not  abundant  evidence  that  the 
Man  Christ  Jesus  and  the  Son  of  God  are  identically 
the  same  intelligent  Being  ?  And  that  the  Son  of 
God  became  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  by  becoming 
the  soul  of  a  human  body? 

You  may  think,  sir,  that  I  ought  to  notice  that 
all  Athanasian  writers  do  not  agree  with  Mr.  Jones, 
that  it  was  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  or  the  Man 
merely,  who  is  represented  as  receiving  fulness  and. 
authority  from  the  Father.  I  am  sensible,  indeedjthat 


128  Oti  the  real  Divinity 

there  is  another  opinion  advanced  by  some  writers 
of  great  resp  'Ciability  ;  and  it  is  to  me  a  matter  of 
regret,  that  1  have  occasion  to  bring  it  into  view  : 
for,  if  it  be  possible,  it  is  to  me  more  inconsistent 
than  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Jones. — The  opinion  re- 
ferred to  is  of  this  import,  That  the  representations 
in  Scripture,  respecting  the  derived  fulness  and  au- 
thority of  the  Son,  result  from  the  covenant  of  re- 
demption, in  which  a  mutual  agreement  was  enter- 
ed into  by  the  Three  self-existent  and  co-eternal 
Persons,  respecting  the  part  which  each  should 
perform  in  the  work  of  redemption. 

Dr.  Hopkins  gives  the  following  view  of  these 
covenant  transactions: — 

"  The  second  Person  was  engaged  to  become 
incarnate,  to  do  and  to  suffer  all  that  was  necessary 
for  the  salvation  of  men.  The  Father  promised, 
that  on  his  onsentiog  to  take  upon  him  the  charac- 
ter and  work  of  a  M^'diator  and  Redeemer,  he 
should  be  every  way  furnished  and  assisted  to  go 
through  with  the  work  ;  that  he  should  have  power 
to  save  an  elect  number  of  mankind,  and  form  a 
church  add  kingdom  most  perlVct  and  glorious  : 
In  ord*^r  to  accomplish  this,  all  fhings,  all  power 
in  heaven  and  earih,  shouM  ^>e  given  to  him,  till 
the  work  of  redemption  is  completed." 

The  Doctor  observes  again, 

"  The  blessed  Trinity,  in  the  one  God,  may  be 
considered  as  a  most  exalted,  ha[)py,  and  glorious 
society  or  family,  unitmg  in  the  plan  of  Divine 
operations,  especially  in  acv:omplishing  the  work 
of  redemption.  In  this,  each  one  has  hi-^  part  to 
perform,  according  to  a  njost  wise,  mutual  regula- 
tion or  agreement,  which  may  be  called  a  covenant. 
In  performing  these  several  parts  of  this  wrk,  one 
acts  as  superiour,  and  another  as  irferiour  ,*  or  one 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  129 

acts  under  another^  and  by  his  authorily,  as  ap- 
pointed or  sent  by  him.  This,  by  divines,  is  call- 
ed the  economy  of  the  work  of  redemption.  Ac- 
cording to  this  economy,  the  Son^  the  Redeemer, 
acts  under  the  Father,  and  by  his  will  and  appoint- 
ment, and  in  this  respect  takes  an  inferiour  part  ; 
and  in  this  sense  he  is  supposed  to  speak,  when  he 
says,  the  Father  is  greater  than  /." 

I  confess  to  you,  sir,  that  1  oannot  but  be  amaz- 
ed and  grieved  to  find  such  representations  in  the 
writings  of  so  great  and  so  good  a  man  as  Dr.  Hop- 
kins. I  am  amazed,  because  I  must  suppose  that 
he  was  so  blinded  by  theory  as  not  to  pay  due  at- 
tention to  the  import  of  what  he  wrote.  And  I  am 
grieved,  that  a  man  so  eminent  should  do  so  much  to 
expose  Christianity  to  the  ridicule  of  unbelievers. 

"  A  glorious  society  or  family  /" — A  family  of 
what?  ^oioimen  ;  noi  o^  angels.  What  then?  A 
family  oi' self-existent  and  independent  Persons,  each 
of  whom,  as  a  distinct  Persouy  the  Doctor  supposed 
to  be  God.  And  if  we  pay  any  regard  to  the  natu- 
ral import  of  language,  what  are  we  to  denominate 
this  family,  short  of  a  family  of  Gods  ?  I  very  well 
know  that  the  Doctor  denied  the  idea  of  a  plurality 
of  Gods  ;  nor  would  I  intimate  the  contrary  ;  and  I 
most  sincerely  wish  that  all  his  reasonings  and  rep- 
resentations had  been  consistent  with  that  denial. 
But,  far  from  this,  he  has  not  only  undertaken  to 
prove  that  each  of  these  self-existent  Persons  is  God, 
but  in  the  very  passages  under  consideration  he  rep- 
resents these  Persons  as  properly  distinct  Beings, 
as  distinct  Beings  as  any  three  angels  in  heaven. 
They  can  enter  into  covenant  with  each  other — 
each  can  have  a  distinct  part  assigned  him — 
one  can  be  snpcriour,  and  another  act  under  him, 
or  by  his  order — one  can  send  the  other  on  the  most 


130  On  the  real  Divinity 

important  business  ;  and  what  more  than  all  this,  I 
beseech  you,  would  be  requisite  to  constitute  them 
three  as  distinct  beings  as  Peter,  James,  and 
John. 

But  the  most  extraordinary  of  all  these  represen- 
tations are  the  engagements  of  ihe  Father  to  the 
Son — ''  The  Father  promised,  that  on  his  consent- 
ing to  take  upon  him  the  character  and  work  of  a 
Mediator  and  Redeemer,  he  should  be  every  way 
furnished andi  assisted  to  go  t-hrougii  the  work  ;  that 
he  should  have  ^ozuer  to  save  an  elect  number  of 
mankind — In  order  to  accomplish  this,  all  things^ 
all  power  in  heaven  and  earth,  should  be  given  to 
HIM,  until  redemption  is  completed/' 

Be  pleased,  sir,  to  keep  in  mind,  that  the  Doctor 
was  writing  about  two  self-existent,  independent, 
and  all-sufficient  Persons.  Was  it  possible  that 
he  should  suppose  that  an  independent  person  ever 
became  dependent  ?  Did  the  independent  God  ever 
cease  for  a  moment  to  be  independent  ?  If  the 
supposed  self-existent  Son  did  not  become  a  de^ 
pendent  agent  by  incarnation^  what  could  be  the 
ground  ov  occasion  of  the  Father's  promises  that  he 
should  be  furnished  3  nd  assisted,  and  have  all  things, 
all  power  in  heaven  and  earth,  given  to  him  ?  I  am 
not,  sir,  meaning  to  deny,  or  to  doubt,  the  fact 
respecting  the  existence  of  these  promises  of  the 
Father  to  the  Son.  The  Doctor  has  proved  the 
existence  of  these  promises  o(  assistance  and  svp- 
port  in  the  connexion  of  the  paragraphs  quoted. 
But  my  question  is,  Why  were  these  promises  made  ? 
They  were  either  needful,  or  they  were  not.  To 
say  they  were  made,  and  yet  7iot  needful,  would  be 
imputing  to  God  a  kind  of  trifling  which  would  be 
degrading  to  a  wise  and  good  man.  But  if  they 
wer&  needful^  it  must  be  on  one  or  other  of  these. 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  13l 

grounds,  viz.  either  the  Son  was  originally  depend- 
ent  on  the  Father  by  incarnation,  or  he  became  de- 
pendent by  incarnation.  That  he  was  originally 
df'pendent,  you  and  the  Doctor  positively  deny. 
What  ground  then  have  you  IrTt  but  this,  that  a 
solf-exislent  and  independent  Person  became  de- 
pendent by  incarnation  ?  I  see  no  possible  ground 
but  this  which  you  can  take,  unless  you  prefer  to 
reduce  the  solemn  transactions  in  the  covenant  of 
redemption  to  a  mere  iboiv. 

But  can  you,  sir,  believe  that  an  independent 
person  ever  became  dependent  ?  If  you  maintain 
this  position,  it  must  be  at  the  expense  of  another 
which  you  have  wished  to  maintain,  viz.  the  abso- 
lute  immutability  of  the  Son  of  God. 

For  an  independent  person  to  become  dependent, 
is,  I  suspect,  as  great  a  change  as  was  ever  expe- 
rienced by  any  creature  ;  and  as  great  as  for  a  man 
to  be  changed  from  entity  to  non-entity.  But 
ibis  is  not  all — if  you  support  the  hypothesis  that 
the  Son  became  dependent  by  incarnation,  you  must 
do  it  at  the  expense  of  the  immutability  of  God.  If 
it  be  as  you  suppose,  that  the  revealed  God  was 
three  independent  Persons,  and  one  of  those  Persons 
has  become  a  dependent  Agent,  Deity  has  been 
changed,  and  has  ceased  to  be  three  independent 
Persons  in  one  God. 

Will  you,  sir,  think  of  evading  these  objections, 
or  solving  these  difficulties,  by  saying  that  the  Son 
did  not  really  become  dependent,  but  only  appa- 
rently^ by  becoming  united  to  a  dependent  nature  ? 
This,  ray  friend,  will  increase  the  difficulties,  by 
representing  the  part  acted  by  the  Son  as  not  real, 
but  only  in  appearance,  as  well  as  the  part  acted 
by  the  Father.  On  this  hypothesis,  the  Son  would 
put  on  the  appearance  of  needing  his  Father's  sup- 


130  On  the  real  Divinity 

important  business  ;  and  what  more  than  all  this,  I 
beseech  you,  would  be  requisite  to  constitute  them 
three  as  distinct  beings  as  Peter,  James,  and 
John. 

But  the  most  extraordinary  of  all  these  represen- 
tations are  the  engagements  of  ihe  Father  to  the 
Son — ''  The  Father  promised,  that  on  his  consent- 
ing to  take  upon  him  the  character  and  work  of  a 
Mediator  and  Redeemer,  he  should  be  every  way 
furnished  and  assisted  to  go  througli  the  work  ;  that 
he  should  have  ^ozuer  to  save  an  elect  number  of 
mankind — In  order  to  accomplish  this,  all  things, 
all  power  in  heaven  and  earthy  should  be  given  to 
HIM,  until  redemption  is  completed." 

Be  pleased,  sir,  to  keep  in  mind,  that  the  Doctor 
was  writing  about  two  self-existent,  independent, 
and  all-sufficient  Persons.  Was  it  possible  that 
he  should  suppose  that  an  independent  person  ever 
became  dependent  ?  Did  the  independent  God  ever 
cease  for  a  moment  to  be  independent  ?  If  the 
supposed  self-txistent  Son  did  not  become  a  de^ 
pendent  agent  by  incarnation,  what  could  be  the 
ground  or  occasion  of  the  Father's  promises  that  he 
should  he  furnished  and  assisted,  and  have  all  things, 
all  power  in  heaven  and  earth,  given  to  him  ?  I  am 
not,  sir,  meaning  to  deny,  or  to  doubt,  the  fact 
respecting  the  existence  of  these  promises  of  the 
Father  to  the  Son.  The  Doctor  has  proved  the 
existence  of  these  promises  of  fl^szs/a^ce  and  sup- 
port in  the  connexion  of  the  paragraphs  quoted. 
But  my  question  is,  M^hy  were  these  promises  made  ? 
They  were  either  needful,  or  they  were  not.  To 
say  they  were  made,  and  yet  not  needful,  would  be 
imputing  to  God  a  kind  of  trifling  which  would  be 
degrading  to  a  wise  and  good  man.  But  if  they 
were,  needful^  it  must  be  on  one  or  other  of  these. 


and  Glory  of  Chris t»  13t 

grounds,  viz.  either  the  Son  was  originally  depend- 
ent on  the  Father  by  incarnation,  or  he  became  de- 
pendent by  incarnation.  That  he  was  originally 
dependent,  you  and  the  Doctor  posiiively  deny. 
What  ground  then  have  you  left  but  this,  that  a 
self-existent  and  independent  Person  became  de- 
pendent by  incarnation  ?  I  see  no  possible  ground 
but  this  which  you  can  take,  unless  you  prelVr  to 
reduce  the  solemn  transactions  in  the  covenant  of 
redemption  to  a  mere  §bow. 

But  can  you,  sir,  believe  that  an  independent 
person  ever  became  dependent  ?  If  you  njaintain 
this  position,  it  must  be  at  the  expense  of  another 
which  you  have  wished  to  maifjtain,  viz.  the  06^0- 
lute  immutability  of  the  Son  of  God. 

For  an  independent  person  to  become  dependent, 
is,  I  suspect,  as  great  a  change  as  was  ever  expe- 
rienced by  any  creature  ;  and  as  great  as  for  a  man 
to  be  changed  from  E^T1TY  to  non-entity.  But 
this  is  not  all — if  you  support  the  hypothesis  that 
the  Son  became  dependent  by  incarnation^  you  must 
do  it  at  the  expense  of  the  immutability  of  God,  If 
it  be  as  you  suppose,  that  the  revealed  God  was 
three  independent  Persons,  and  one  of  those  Persons 
has  become  a  dependent  Agent,  Deity  has  been 
changed,  and  has  ceased  to  be  three  independent 
Persons  in  one  God. 

Will  you,  sir,  think  of  evading  these  objections, 
or  solving  these  difficulties,  by  saying  that  the  Sou 
did  not  really  become  dependent,  but  only  appa- 
rently^ by  becoming  united  to  a  dependent  nature  ? 
This,  ray  friend,  will  increase  the  difficulties,  by 
representing  the  part  acted  by  the  Son  as  not  real, 
but  only  in  appearance,  as  well  as  the  part  acted 
by  the  Father.  On  this  hypothesis,  the  Son  would 
put  on  the  appearance  of  needing  his  Father's  sup- 


13€  On  the  real  Divinity 

port,  when  in  fact  he  did  not  need  it — he  would  put 
on  the  appearance  of  obeying  the  Father,  when  in 
fact  he  did  not  obey  ;  and  of  suffering  and  dying, 
when  in  fact  he  did  neither  die  nor  suffer. 

Will  you  say  that  the  engagements  of  the  Father 
to  th'  Son  were  of  this  tenour,  that  he  would  sup- 
port the  human  nature  to  which  the  Son  should  be 
united  ?  If  so,  I  ask  what  need  had  the  Son  of  this  ? 
Was  he  not  personally  sufficient  for  the  support  of 
his  human  nature  ?  Again,  I  a.^k,  if  the  engage- 
ments of  the  Father  to  the  Son  were,  that  he  would 
support  the  J^hn  to  whom  the  Son  should  be  unit- 
ed, what  part  had  the  Son  to  perform  ?  W^as  it  not 
simply  this,  that  he  should  appear  to  become  de- 
pendent by  becoming  united  to  the  Man,  and  the 
Father  would  furnish,  assist,  and  enable  the  Manxo 
do  the  whole  business  of  obeying  and  suffering? 
And  is  this,  sir,  the  ground  of  our  obligations  to 
the  Son  of  God  ?  !s  this  the  ground  on  which  the 
redeemed  of  the  Lord  sing  "  Worthy  is  the  Lamb 
that  was  slain  ? 

It  is,  sir,  painful  to  me  thus  to  expose  the  theory 
I  once  attempted  to  maintain,  and  which  has  been 
advocated  by  some  of  the  greatest  and  best  of  men. 
But  I  view  it  to  be  a  duty  which  I  owe  to  God,  and 
to  his  Son  who  has  given  himself  for  us.  And 
while  I  sincerely  lament  that  the  representations 
of  Dr.  Hopkins,  on  which  1  have  remarked,  are  to 
be  found  in  the  writings  of  a  man  so  justly  esteem- 
ed, it  affords  me  abundant  joy  that  the  Bible  itself 
is  not  chargeable  with  such  inconsistent  represen- 
tations. 

As  I  understand  the  Scriptures,  the  promises  of 
the  Father  were  made  to  one  who  was  in  truth  and 
reality  the  Son  of  God — to  one  who  e-oer  was  de- 
pendent on  the  Father,    who   ever   felt  his  depen- 


und  Glory  of  Christ,  133 

dence,  and  was  ever  willing  to  acknowledge  it — one 
who  could  pray  with  propriety  and  sincerity  while 
in  the  flesh  ;  and  in  view  of  his  dependence^  in  view 
of  the  covenant  of  redemption,  and  in  view  of  the 
sufferings  he  was  about  lo  endure,  he  could  lift  up 
his  eyes  to  heaven,  and  say,  "  Father,  the  hour  is 
come,  glorify  thy  Son,  that  thv  Son  may  also 
glorify  THEE  :  as  thou  hast  given  him  power  ovei' 
all  flesh,  that  he  should  give  eternal  life  to  as  many 
as  thou  hast  given  him  :  And  this  is  life  eternal,  to 
know  THEE,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ 
whom  THOU  hast  sent,  1  have  glorified  thee  on  the 
earth;  I  have  finished  the  work  which  thou  gavest 
me  to  do.  And  now,  O  Father,  glorify  thou  me 
with  thine  own  self  zuith  the  glory  which  I  had  v:ith 
thee  before  the  zoorld  was,"^^ 

To  a  Son  who  could,   in  sincerity,  make  such  a 
prayer,  the  Father  might,  with  perfect  propriety 
and  sincerity,  make  promises  of  assistance,  of  sup- 
port, of /jozoer,  and  exaltation.     On  this  ground,  the 
covenant  transactions  between  the  Father  and  the 
Son  may  appear  solemn  and  affecting  realities  ;  and 
likewise  all  the  subsequent  proceedings  on  the  part 
of  the  Father,  and  on  the  part  of  the  Son.     With 
-this  view,  also,  agree  all  the  predictions  respecting 
what  the  Son  should  do  and  suffer;  all  the  promis- 
es of  Divine   assistance   and   support;  all  that  is 
Slid  by  Christ  of  himself,   of  his  dependence,   his 
derived  fulness  and  authority;  and  all  that  is  said 
by  the  apostles  respecting  the  fulness  of  the  Deity 
dwelling  in  him  ;  8n«l  of  the  power  and  authority 
which  Christ  received   of  God  as  Saviour,   Judge, 
and  Lord  of  all.     We   have  no  occasion   for  any 
forced  or  unnatural  cov\%\.T\xc\.\or\  of  any  of  these  nu- 
merous passages  of  Scripture  ;  nor  have  we  any 
occasion  lo  frame  and  invent  hypotheses  which  con- 
12 


134  Oil  the  real  Divinity 

tradict  the  plain  import  of  Scripture  language,  and 
finally  involve  us  in  contradiction  and  absurdity. 

Is  it  not,  sir,  a  truth,  that  the  personal  self-exist- 
ence of  the  Son  of  God  has  been  too  hastily  estab- 
lished as  an  article  of  Christian  faith? — established 
as  an  article  of  such  unquestionable  truth  and  in- 
finite importance,  that  every  opposing  passage  of 
Scripture  must  be  made  to  bend  to  it,  or  break  be- 
fore it?  And  that  too  while  the  general  tenour  of 
Scripture  language  and  Scripture  representations 
are,  according  to  the  most  natural  import  of  words, 
directly  opposed  to  the  idea  ?  Yea,  with  a  view  to 
glorify  Christ  with  the  attributes  of  personal  self- 
existence  and  independence^  have  not  hypotheses 
been  formed  which  imply  a  sacrifice  of  the  solemn 
realities  of  the  covenant  of  redemption,  and  of  the 
obedience  and  death  of  the  Son  of  God  ?  And  in 
attempting  to  support  this  one  doctrine,  have  not 
the  plainest  and  most  simple  representations  of 
Scripture,  and  even  the  whole  gospel  scheme,  been 
involved  in  mystery  and  obscurity  ?  Surely,  sir,  be- 
fore we  allow  any  doctrine  such  a  share  of  impor- 
tance, we  ought,  at  least,  seriously  to  inquire 
whether  it  be  founded  in  the  word  of  God. 

As  the  doctrine  ot  the  personal  self-existence  of 
the  Son  of  God  has  long  been  a  popular  doctrine, 
have  we  not  on  that  ground  received  it  as  true,  and 
made  it  our  business  to  support  the  doctrine  before 
we  examined  it  by  the  light  ol  God's  word.?  And 
instead  of  making  the  Scriptures  a  standard  by 
which  to  measure  the  doctrine,  have  we  noi  been  in 
the  habit  of  making  the  doctrine  a  standard  by 
which  to  measure  the  Scriptures  ? 

Will  you,  sir,  still  urge  that  Christ  cannot  be  a 
Divine  Person  unless  he  be  self-existent  ?  By  what 
authority,  or  by  what  analogy,  will  you  be  able  to 


und  Glory  of  Christ.  136 

support  such  an  objection  ?  Nothing  more  was  ne- 
cessary to  constitute  Seth  a  human  person^  than 
being  the  son  of  a  human  person.  And  il  God  be 
a  Divine  Person.,  his  ownSonxnusi  be  a  Divine  Per- 
son, According  to  every  analogy  in  nature,  to  af- 
firm that  Jesus  Christ  is  God's  own  Son  implies  that 
he  is  a  Person  truly  Divine. 


LETTER  Vn. 

Divine  Honours  due  to  the  Son  of  God. 

REV.   SIR, 

That  ihe  Son  of  God  is  to  be  regarded  as  an: 
object  of  Divine  honours,  is  so  plain  from  the 
Scriptures,  that  it  seems  extraordinary  that  it 
sho'jld  ever  have  been  denied  by  any  one  who  has 
admitted  the  Bible  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
— In  support  of  the  idea,  we  may  note  several 
things — 

1.  We  have  express  declarations  of  the  will  of 
God,  "  The  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  com- 
mitted all  judgment  to  the  Son,  that  all  men  should 
honour  the  Son  even  as  they  honour  the  Father." 
^his  is  a  sufficient  warrant  for  7nen  to  give  Divine 
honours  to  the  Son  of  God.  Angels  have  their 
warrant  also ;  for  "  When  he  bringeth  in  his  only 
BEGOTTEN  into  the  world,  he  saifh.  Let  all  the  an- 
gels of  God  worship  him." — And  we  have  another 
passage  which  amounts  to  a  warrant  both  for  men 
and  angels :  "  Wherefore  God  hath  highly  exalted 
him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every 
name,  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should 
bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and 
things  under  the  earth." 


1 36  On  the  real  Divinily 

2.  We  have  the  example  of  saints  on  earth  and 
saints  in  heaven.  In  rrspect  to  saints  on  earth,  we 
not  only  have  many  individual  instances  recorded, 
but  the  great  body  of  Christians  in  the  apostolick 
age  were  characterized  as  "those  who  call  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus, '^''  That  both  angels  and 
saints  in  glory  pay  Divine  honours  to  the  Son  of 
God,  is  represented  by  John  in  the  account  he  gives 
of  his  visions  :  "  And  1  beheld,  and  I  heard  the 
voice  of  many  angels  round  about  the  throne,  and 
the  beasts  and  the  elders  ;  and  the  number  of  them 
was  ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand,  and  thou- 
sands of  thousands,  saying  with  a  loud  voice,  Wor- 
thy IS  THE  Lamb  that  was  «lain,  to  receive 
power,  and  riches,  and  wisdom,  and  strength,  and 
honour,  and  glory,  and  blessing:  And  every  crea- 
ture which  is  in  heaven,  and  on  the  earth,  and  un- 
der the  earth,  and  such  as  are  in  the  sea,  and  all 
that  are  in  them,  heard  I,  saying,  Blessings  and 
^onour,  and  glory,  and  power,  be  unto  him  that  sit- 
teth  on  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb,  for  ever  and 
ever." 

To  those  who  regard  the  Scriptures  as  of  Divine 
authority,  the  things  which  have  already  been  no- 
ted may'  be  considered  as  sufficient  to  authorize  us 
to  pay  Divine  honours  to  the  Son  of  God ;  even  if 
we  should  be  unable  to  investigate  the  grounds  of 
the  Divine  directions,  and  of  the  examples  of  saints 
and  angels.  It  may,  however,  be  desirable  that 
we  should  obtain  a  clear  view  of  the  reasons  why 
such  honours  are  to  be  given  to  Jesus  Christ. — We 
may  therefore  observe, 

1.  That  Divine  honours  are  due  to  the  Son  of 
God,  on  the  principle  of  derived  dignity.  He  is 
God's  own  Son,  his  First-begotten,  his  only  begotten 
Son  ;  and  he  hath,  by  inheritance^  a  more  excellent 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  137 

name  than  the  angels.  On  the  same  principle  that 
an  own  and  only  son  of  a  rightful  king  is  to  be  re- 
garded and  honoured  as  a  rrtyal  person,  Divine 
honours  are  due  to  the  Son  of  God. 

2.  The  Son  of  God  is  worthy  of  Divine  honours^ 
on  the  ground  of  his  Divine  fulness ;  for  it  hath 
pleased  the  leather  that  in  him  all  fulness  should 
dwell.  That  fulness  which  Christ  possesses  by  the 
pleasure  of  the  Father,  is  really  ChrisVs  fulness ;  and 
it  is  as  excellent,  considered  as  ihefulness  of  Christ, 
as  it  is  considered  as  the  fulness  of  the  Father, 
The  self-existence  of  God  does  not  imply  that  he 
was  the  cause  of  his  own  existence  or  his  own  ful- 
ness. And  God  is,  in  truth,  no  more  the  cause  oi 
his  own  fulness  than  Christ  is  the  cause  of  the  Di* 
vine  fulness  which  dwells  in  him  by  the  pleasure  of 
God.  If,  therefore,  the  fulness  there  is  in  God  be 
a  proper  ground  on  which  to  give  him  Divine  hon* 
ours,  the  fulness  there  is  in  Christ  is  a  reason  why 
we  should  honour  the  Son  as  we  honour  the  Father 
— that  is,  so  far  as  Divine  fulness  is  the  ground  of 
Divine  honours, 

3.  The  Son  of  God  is  worthy  of  Divine  honours, 
on  the  ground  of  his  Divine  offices.  It  is  a  dictate 
of  reason  and  revelation,  that  official  character 
should  be  respected  and  honoured.  And  the  high- 
er the  office  any  person  sustains  by  right,  the  great- 
er are  the  honours  which  are  due  on  the  ground  of 
official  character.  The  official  character  of  a  gen- 
eral demands  higher  honours  than  that  of  a  corpo- 
ral— the  official  character  of  the  president  of  the 
United  States  demands  higher  honours  than  that  of 
an  ordinary  civil  magistrate.  And  or)  the  same 
principle,  Z)bme/ionowr5  are  due  to  the  Son  of  God: 
for  his  offices  are  truly  Divine,     The  offices  of  Sa- 

12* 


1 3S  On  the  real  Divinity 

viouR,  Judge,  and  Lord  of  all,  are  as  truly 
Divine  offices  as  any  offices  sustained  by  God  the 
Father.  And  if  there  be  any  reason  to  jiive  Divine 
honours  to  God  in  view  of  his  Divine  offices,  there 
is  the  same  reason  to  give  Divine  lionours  to  the 
Son  of  God  :  for  the  Son  has  not  obtainfeTf  tft^se  of- 
fices by  violence  or  usurpation,  but  by  the  plea- 
sure of  God,  v^^ho  had  an  unquestionable  right  to 
bestow  them.  And  if  he  truly  possess  those  offi- 
ces by  the  gift  of  the  Father,  so  far  as  official  cha- 
racter may  be  a  ground  of  Divine  honours,  Christ 
is  as  worthy  of  Divine  honours  as  though  he  had  pos- 
sessed the  same  offices  by  self- existence.  There- 
fore, on  the  ground  of  official  character,  we  may 
honour  the  Son  as  we  honour  the  Father. 

4.  The  Son  of  God  is  worthy  of  Divine  hon- 
ours, on  the  ground  of  Divine  w^orks.  Creation 
is  a  Divine  work;  and  by  him  were  all  things  cre- 
ated. Upholding  and  governing  the  world  is  a 
Divine  work;  and  he  upholdeth  all  things  by  the 
Avord  of  his  pow?r  ;*  and  he  is  Lord  of  all.  Sal- 
vation is  a  Divine  work;  and  God  hath  exalted 
him  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour — The  price  of 
redemption  he  has  personally  paid  ;  and  he  is  made 
head  over  all  things  to  the  church.  Judging  the 
world  is  a  Divine  work;  and  the  Father  hath  com- 
mitted all  judgment  unto  the  Son.  It  is  indeed  a 
truth,  that  God  does  all  these  things  by  his  Son  ; 
but  the  son  is  the  real  agentor  doer  of  these  things, 

*  Heb.  i.  3.  In  his  Family  Expositor,  Dr.  Doddridge  expresses 
the  opinion,  that  the  phrase  *'  his  power'>'>  intends  the  power  of 
the  Father  ;  and  the  construction  of  the  sentence  is  in  favour  of 
his  opinion.  But  this  is  no  objection  to  the  idea,  that  the  power, 
by  which  the  world  is  upheld,  is  also  truly  ChrisCs  power.  It  is 
the  poioer  of  God,  originally  and  independently,  and  the  power  of 
Christ  by  the  pleasure  of  the  Father. 


and  Glory  of  Christ.  139 

as  truly  as  Paul  was  the  author  of  the  epistles  to 
Timothy. 

It  is  a  principle  of  reason  and  common  sense,  as 
well  as  of  revelation,  that  great  and  excellent  works 
are  a  proper  ground  of  honour.  When  the  elders 
of  the  Jews  came  to  Christ  to  request  favour  in  be- 
half of  the  centurion,  whose  servant  was  sick,  in 
commendation  of  the  centurion  the  elders  said, 
That,  "  he  is  worthy  for  whom  he  should  do  this ; 
for  he  loveth  our  nation,  and  hath  built  us  a  syna- 
gogue." What  honours  have  been  paid  to  Wash- 
ington^ on  the  ground  not  only  of  the  important 
offices  he  sustained,  but  on  the  ground  of  the  impor- 
tant works  he  performed !  Now,  if  more  honour 
has  been  due  to  Washington  on  the  ground  of  his 
works,  than  has  been  due  to  the  meanest  soldier 
in  his  army,  or  the  meanest  peasant  in  community, 
Divine  honours  are  due  to  Christ  on  the  ground  of 
his  Divine  works,  A  greater  than  Washington  is 
here  ;  one  who  has  done  greater  things;  one  who 
hath  loved  our  race,  and  built  us  a  world,  and  filled 
it  with  the  fruits  of  his  kindness;  yea,  one  who 
hath  so  lover!  n*  ae  ingiiTP.  h^mpecf  his  own  iife^  for 
our  redemption.  But  God  raised  him  from  the 
dead,  and  ''  exalted  him  with  his  own  right  hand." 
God  viewed  him  worthy  of  Divine  honou7s.  on  the 
ground  of  what  he  had  done,  ^^  wherefore  God  hath 
highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name  above 
every  name,  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee 
should  bow.'' ^  If  it  was  not  improper  for  God  to 
place  the  Son  on  his  own  right  hand^  it  is  not  im- 
proper for  us  to  pay  Divine  honours  to  his  name. 

From  the  evidence  we  have  in  the  sacred  wri- 
tings, that  Divine  honours  are  to  be  paid  to  the 
Son  of  God,  it  has  been  inferred,  that  the  Son  is 
personally  the  self-existenl  God,    And  so  confident 


140  On  the  real  Divinity 

have  some  been  that  this  inference  is  infallibly  cor- 
rect, that  they  have  ventured,  on  the  supposition 
it  be  not  so,  to  implicate  the  Christian  world  in  a 
charge  of  gross  idolatry,  and  the  God  of  truth  in  a 
charge  of  self-contradiction  and  inconsistency.  Is 
not  this,  sir,  for  fallible  creatures,  carrying  things 
to  a  great  length  ?  And  does  it  not  imply  such  a 
degree  of  confidence  in  the  correctness  of  their 
own  understandings,  as  none  should  possess  until 
they  arrive  to  that  state  where  they  shall  see  as 
they  shall  be  seen,  and  know  as  they  shall  be 
known  ? 

But  what,  sir,  is  the  ground  on  which  this  extra- 
ordinary confidence  rests  ?  Is  it  not  a  principle, 
taken  for  granted,  which  has  no  real  foundation  in 
reason,  analogy,  or  the  word  of  God  '?  Yea,  a  prin- 
ciple which  is  contradicted  by  analogy,  and  by  as 
plain  representations  as  are  contained  in  the  ora- 
cles of  truth  ?  The  principle  taken  for  granted  is 
this.  That  it  is  impossible  with  God  to  constitute  a 
CHARACTER  which  shall  be  worthy  of  Divine  hon- 
ours ;  therefore,  if  Jesus  Christ  be  not  personally 
the    self-existent   God,   ho    cannot   be  an  object  of 

Divine  honours. 

But,  sir,  be  pleased  to  admit,  for  one  moment*, 
the  possibility  that  Christ  is  just  such  a  Person  and 
character  as  I  have  supposed  him  to  be — truly  the 
Son  of  the  living  God,  God's  own  and  only  Son 

a  Son  in  whom  it  hath  pleased  the   Father  that 

all  fulness  should  dwell — one  truly  united  to  Deity, 
and  by  God  invested  with  the  Divine  offices  of  Sa- 
viour,  Lord  and  Judge :  What  but  Divine  honours 
are  due  to  his  name  ? 

What  says  analogy  ? — By  David's  pleasure,  wc 
behold  Solomon  placed  on  the  throne  of  Israel ; 
and  we  see  the  friends  of  David  and  of  Solomon 


a7id  Glory  of  Christ,  141 

giving  him  the  honours  which  were  due  to  the  so». 
of  David  and  king  of  Israel,  We  also  see  the  Son 
OF  God,  "  for  the  suffering  of  death ^  crowned  vvith 
glory  and  honour,"  seated  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
Majesty  on  high,  exalted  by  God,  as  Lord  of  all ; 
and  shall  we  pronounce  it  idolatry  to  pay  him  Di- 
vine honours  as  the- Son  of  God,  and  the  constitu- 
ted Lord  of  (he  universe  ?  Or  shall  we  arraign  the 
conduct  of  God,  and  pronounce  it  absurd  for  hio) 
thus  to  exalt  his  own  Son  ? 

But  what  saith  the  Scriptures?  When  they  re- 
present Christ  as  an  object  of  Divine  honours,  do 
they  not  uniformly  represent  him  as  a  Person  as 
distinct  from  God  as  he  is  from  the  Father  ?  Is 
there  one  instance  in  which  he  is  represented  as  the 
self-existent  God,  and  on  that  ground  worshipped  ? 
— In  regard  to  those  declarations  of  the  Divine  will 
respecting  the  honouring  of  Christ,  or  the  worship- 
ping of  Christ,  is  he  not  in  the  plainest  manner 
distinguished  from  the  self-existent  God  ?  All  judg- 
ment was  committed  unto  him  by  the  Father, 
that  all  men  should  honour  the  Son  as  they  honour 
the  Father.  Was  he  not  a  Being  distinct  from  the 
one  who  committed  all  judgment  unto  him  ?  In  the 
connexion,  he  calls  that  Being  his  Father  ;  and  Pe- 
ter says,  that  Christ  commanded  his  disciples  to 
preach  and  to  testify  that  it  is  He  who  is  ordained 
of  God  to  be  the  Judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead. 
Therefore,  when  he  is  ho'ioured  as  the  Judge,  he 
is  honoured  as  one  ordained  of  God.  He  is  then, 
in  this  case,  plainly  distinguished  from  God.  It 
was  God  also  who  brought  him  into  the  world,  as 
the  ONLY  BEGOTTEN,  and  Said,  "  Let  all  the  angels 
of  God  worship  him."  It  was  God  also  who  ^^  ex- 
alted him;''"'  and  God  gave  him  the  name  which  is 
above  every  name,  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every 


142  On  the  real  Divinity 

knee  should  bow.  In  all  these  cases,  the  Son  is  as 
clearly  distinguished  from  God,  as  Solomon  is,  in 
any  place,  distinguished  from  David. 

As  there  is  no  declaration  importing  that  Christ 
should  be  worshipped  or  honoured  as  being  person- 
ally the  self-existent  God,  we  may  perhaps  find, 
that,  in  the  examples  of  worshipping  Christ,  he  was 
honoured  or  worshipped  as  a  Being  distinct  from 
God.  When  he  had  stilled  the  tempest,  they  that 
were  in  the  ship  came  and  worshipped  him,  saying, 
"Of  a  truth  thou  art  the  Son  of  God."  And  in 
several  instances  he  was  worshipped  under  this 
title.  By  the  woman  of  Canaan  he  was  worshipped 
as  the  Lord,  the  Son  of  David.  Can  any  person 
of  candour  and  discernment  suppose,  that  in  either 
of  these  cases  he  was  considered  as  personally  the 
self-existent  God  ?  The  terms  they  used  certainly 
import  no  such  thing.  To  be  the  Son  of  God,  and 
to  be  the  self-existent  God,  are  ideas  as  distinct  as 
David  and  the  Son  of  David.  The  angels  were 
not  required  to  worship  him  as  the*  self-existent 
God;  but  the  self-existent  God  required  them  to 
worship  Christ  as  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God, 
When  John,  in  the  Revelations,  gives  us  such  a 
striking  representation  of  the  worship  or  Divine 
honours  paid  by  all  the  angels  and  saints  to  Christ 
as  the  Lamb  of  God,  the  Lamb,  in  the  represen- 
tations, is  clearly  distinguished  from  God  as  another 
intelligent  being — as  one  who  had  been  slain — as 
ONE  who  had  redeemed  us  to  God  by  his  blood. 
No  one,  it  is  hoped,  will  pretend,  that  God,  the 
self-existent,  was  ever  slain  ;  yet  when  Divine  hon- 
ours were  paid  the  Lamb,  the  angels  and  the  re- 
deemed of  the  Lord  said,  *' Worthy  is  the  Lamb 
that  was  slain,  to  receive  power,  and  riches,  and 
wisdom  and  strength,  and  honoufj  and  glory,  and 
l^lessing." 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  143 

There  is  not,  perhaps,  a  more  striking represen» 
tation  of  Divine  honours  paiJ  to  the  Son  of  God, 
in  any  part  of  the  Bible,  than  those  which  are  giv- 
en hy  John  in  the  Revelations;  yet  all  those  hon- 
ours were  paid  to  one  who  could  say,  '^  I  am  He 
that  liveth^  and  was  dead,  and,  behold,  I  live  for- 
evermore;"  and  to  one  whom  the  worshippers  con- 
sidered as  having  been  slain.  Then,  as  true  as  it 
is  that  God  was  never  personally  dead^  so  ti  ue  it  is 
that  Jesus  Christ  may  receive  divine  honours  as  an 
intelligent  Being,  personally  distinct  from  God. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  here  to  notice  an  extraordi- 
nary idea  suggested  by  Mr.  Jones,  in  regard  to  the 
Lamb.  Speaking  upon  these  words,  "  Thou  wast 
slain,  and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy  blood," 
and  feeling  the  impropriety  of  supposing  that  God 
suffered  and  died^  he  informs  us  that  by  the  Lamb 
is  intended  ''  the  Messiah's  humanity,^''  [p.  32.] 
That  the  liile  Lamb  includes  the  Messiah's  humani- 
ty, is  not  denied  ;  but  that  the  term  Lamb  means 
the  Messiah'4. humanity  in  contradistinction  to  his 
own  proper  nature  as  the  Son  of  God,  may  nrit  be 
admitted.  If  the  name  Lamb  mean  the  "  Messi- 
ah's humanity"  in  the  sense  suggested  by  Mr, 
Jones,  we  may  properly  substitute  the  terms  "  Mes- 
siah?s  humanity''''  whenever  the  word  Lamb  is  used 
as  denoting  Christ. 

Let  us  then  make  use  of  the  substitute  in  the 
connection  from  which  Mr.  Jones  selected  the  text. 

"  And  I  beheld,  and  lo,  in  the  midst  of  the  throne 
— stood  the  ^^  Messiah'' s  humanity,''''  as  it  had  been 
slain,  having  seven  horns  and  seven  eyes,  which 
are  the  seven  spirits  of  God  :  And  he  came  and 
took  the  book — And  when  he  had  taken  the  book, 
the  four  beasts  an  !  the  four  and  tweniy  elders  fell 
down  before  the  '*  Messiah'^s  humanity''^ — and  they 


144  On  the  real  Divinity 

sung  a  new  song,  saying,  Thou  art  worthy  to  take 
the  book,  and  to  open  the  seals  thereof;  for  thou 
wast  slain,  &:c. — Worthy  is  the  *'  MessiaK's  human- 
ity^"^"^  that  was  slain,  to  receive  power.  &;c. — Bles- 
sing, and  honour,  and  power  unto  him  that  siueth 
on  the  throne,  and  to  the  '''■  JMessiaJi'^s  humanity^^ 
for  ever  and  ever."     Rev.  ch.  v. 

To  such  absurdity,  sir,  are  great  and  good  men 
sometimes  reduced,  in  attempting  to  support  a  the- 
ory in  opposition  to  the  plain  import  of  scripture 
language.  Had  Mr.  Jones  duly  regarded  the  na- 
tural meaning  of  the  terms  ihe  Son  of  God,  and  be- 
lieved that  he  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men  by 
becoming  the  soul  of  a  human  body,  that  he  really 
suffered  and  died  on  the  cross  as  the  antitype  of  the 
paschal  Lamb,  he  might  then  have  considered  the 
L.\MB,  seen  by  John,  as  the  Messiah  himself,  and 
not  the  "  Messiahs  humanity.'''^  But  if  an  Aihana- 
sian  writer  may  so  construe  the  names  of  the  Son 
of  God,  as  implicitly  to  represent  all  the  heavealy 
hosts  as  worshi{)ping  the  ^'  Messiah''s  humanity,'^^ 
may  1  not  escape  censure  in  regard  to  the  hypothe- 
sis that  God  hath  exalted  his  own  Son,  and  conslitiu 
ted  him  an  object  of  Divine  honours  ? 

What!  you  may  say,  are  we  to  have  two  Gods? 
No,  sir  ;  *my  object  is  to  prove  that  we  have  but  one 
self-existent  God,  by  proving  that,  in  the  view  of 
God,  of  angels,  and  of  saints  in  glory,  the  Son  of 
God  is  an  object  of  Divine  worship  ;  not  indeed, 
on  the  ground  of  self-existence,  but  on  the  ground 
of  his  dignity  as  God^s  own  and  only  Son,  and  the 
constituted  Lord  and  Saviour  of  the  world. 

But,  sir,  let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  and  never 
forgotten,  that  while  vve  thus  honour  the  Som  of 
God,  we  honour  the  Father  also.     Christ,  taught 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  145 

his  disciples  this  doctrine,  He  that  receiveth  me, 
receiveth  him  that  sent  me;  and  he  that  despiseth 
me,  despiseth  him  that  sent  me.  And  when  he 
taught  the  Jews  that  the  "  Father  hath  committed 
all  judgment  unto  the  Son,  that  all  men  may  honour 
ihe  Son  even  as  they  honour  the  Father,"  he  sub- 
joined, ''  He  that  honourtik  not  the  Son,  kononrclh 
n>)t  the  Father  that  sent  him."  And  when  Paul 
stated  to  the  Philippians  how  God  had  exalted  his 
Son,  and  given  hin  a  name  above  every  name,  that 
evert/  knee  should  bozo  to  the  name  of  Jesus,  he  let 
them  know  tliat  the  Divine  honours  to  be  paid  to 
Christ  were  "  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father,^^ 

On  whichsoever  of  the  grounds  that  have  been 
stated,  we  pay  Divine  honours  to  the  Son  of  God, 
the  same  are,  at  the  same  time,  paid  to  the  Father. 

If  we  honour  the  Son  on  the  ground  of  the  Fa- 
thpr's  requirement,  we  thus  honour  the  Father. 

If  we  honotjr  the  Son  on  ihe  principle  o(  derived 
dignity  as  (he  Son  of   God,  the  character  of  the 
Fither  is  the  primary  ground  of  the  honours  paid  to 
ihe  Son, 

If  we  pay  Divine  honours  to  Christ  on  this 
ground,  that  "  in  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of 
the  Godhead,"  we  honour  the  fulness  of  the  Fa- 
ther, as  truly  as  when  the  person  of  the  Father  is 
immediately  honoured. 

If  we  honour  the  Son  on  the  ground  of  his  official 
character  and  the  Divine  authority  he  possesses  by 
the  pleasure  of  the  Fjither,  as  the  constituted  Sa- 
viour, Lord,  and  Judge  of  the  world,  it  is  not  only 
the  authority  of  the  Son,  but  the  Father's  au- 
thority IN  HIM,  which  we  honour  and  adore. 

If  we  honour  him  on  the  ground    of  his  Divine 
works  as  Creator  and  Lord,   the  Father  in   him 
does  the  work, 
13 


i46  On  the  real   Divinity 

If  we  honour  the  Son  on  the  ground  of  his  abase- 
ment, sufferings  and  death,  for  our  sakes,  we  are  at 
the  same  time  to  remember,  that  "  God  so  loved 
the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son" 
— and  that  it  is  *'  unto  God"  that  the  Son  hath  re- 
deemed us  by  his  blood. 

Therefore,  in  every  point  of  view,  and  on  every 
ground,  the  Divine  honours  which  are  paid  to  the 
Son  are  "  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father,^^ 

Is  it  not,  sir,  surprising,  that  Christian  writers 
should  have  been  so  unguarded  as  to  assert,  that  if 
Jesus  Christ  be  not  personally  and  truly  the  self- 
existent  God,  then  the  Christian  church  in  all  ages 
have  been  guilty  of  "  gross  idolatry  ;"  and  that  the 
religion  of  Christ  "  is  so  far  from  destroying  idola- 
try, that  it  is  only  »Ht#re  lefined  and  dangerous 
species  of  it  ?"  If  such  wrrPei»s  have  incautiously 
implicated  themselves  in  a  charge  of  idolatry,  it  is 
hoped  they  will  not  blame  me  for  that.  To  accuse 
them  of  idolatry,  or  to  view  them  as  guilty  of  it,  is 
far  from  me.  For  though  the  correctness  of  their 
views,  in  respect  to  ihe  ground  on  which  Divine 
honours  are  due  to  the  Son  of  God,  is  doubted,  yet 
in  my  view  they  have  not  given  him  more  honour 
than  is  due  to  his  name.  They  may  have,  indeed, 
in  support  of  their  theory,  said  things  respecting 
the  personal  self-existence  and  independence  of 
the  Son  of  God,  which  are  more  than  are  true  ;  but 
it  is  doubted  whether  any  Christian  on  earth,  in 
his  devotional  views  and  feelings,  ever  ascribed  so 
much  real  excellency  and  glory  to  Christ,  as  are 
properly  due  to  his  name. 

If  you,  sir,  entertain  the  idea,  that  my  views  of 
the  real  excellency,  glory,  and  love  of  Christ,  have 
been  lowered  down  by  adopting  the  present  theo- 
ry, be  assured  that  the  very  reverse  of  your  «p- 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  147 

prehensions  is  the  truth.  While  supporting  your 
theory,  and  speaking  conformably  to  it,  my  lan- 
guage imported  ideas  respecting  Christ  which  now 
appear  incorrect.  But  it  is  one  thing  to  adopt 
forms  of  speech  of  high  import,  and  another  to  have 
distinct  and  impressive  ideas  oi  real  majesty^  dignity^ 
and  glory.  And  while  formerly  using  language 
which  imported  the  self-existence  and  indepen- 
dence of  Christ,  my  ideas  respecting  his  greatness, 
and  glory,  as  a  distinct  Person  from  the  Father, 
were  very  confused  and  indistinct.  For  it  was  im- 
possible for  me  to  form  a  definite  idea  of  what  could 
be  meant  by  Person^  on  the  theory  o(  three  Persons 
in  one  God  or  one  Being,  The  Son  of  God,  as 
united  to  the  man  or  human  nature  of  Christ,  was 
to  me  a  certain  something's^ out  which  the  terms 
self-existence  and  independence  were  used  by  me 
as  by  others,  but  of  which  no  definite  idea  was  con- 
ceived, any  more  than  of  that  in  bodies  which  is 
called  the  principle  or  power  of  attraction  ;  ex- 
cepting when,  by  the  aid  of  analogy,  the  Son  of 
God  was  viewed  as  a  distinct  intelligent  Being, 
But  as  this  was  contrary  to  the  theory,  when  that 
occurred  my  mind  was  necessarily  confused.  But 
on  the  present  theory,  the  natural  import  of  Scrip- 
ture language,  in  view  of  analogies,  affords  me  ideas 
of  the  majesty,  the  glory,  the  dignity,  and  the  love 
of  Christ,  far  more  distinct,  exalted,  and  impressive, 
than  any  which  ever  entered  my  mind  on  Atha- 
nasian  ground. 

Here  it  may  be  proper  to  notice  more  particular- 
ly the  self-contradiction  and  inconsistency,  in  which 
it  has  been  supposed  God  must  be  involved  if  his 
Son  be  not  self-existent — The  parts  of  the  suppos- 
ed contradiction  are  of  the  following  tenour,  viz. 


148  On  the  real  Dimnity 

On  the  one  hand,  God  has  positively  prohibited 
the  worship  of  idols^  or  any  god  but  himself.  He 
has  said,  "  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else. 
Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me."  "  I 
am  the  Lord,  that  is  my  name,  and  my  glory  1  v*'iH 
not  give  to  another,  neither  my  praise  to  graven 
images." 

On  the  other  hand,  God  said  respecting  his  Son, 
"  Let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him" — And  he 
has  given  him  a  name  above  every  name,  that  at 
the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow. 

In  view  of  such  passages,  it  has  been  inferred 
that  Christ  is  personally  the  same  God  who  has 
made  these-declarations,  or  there  must  be  a  con^tra- 
diction.  To  show  that  neither  of  these  inferences 
is  correct,  is  the  design  of  the  follomiig  observa- 
tions. 

1.  If  Jesus  Christ  be  irvly  the  Son  of  the  self- 
existent  God,  he  is  neither  a  graven  image,  an  idol, 
nor  2i  false  god.     Hence, 

2.  A  prohibition  respecting  the  worship  of  graveti 
images,  or  idols,  or  false  gods,  amounts  to  no  pro- 
liibition  of  paying  Divine  honours  to  the  Son  of 
God,  as  the  Son  of  God,  or  the  constituted  Lord  of 
the  universe.     Therefore, 

3.  Consistently  with  all  that  God  has  said  in  the 
Bible  against  the  worship  of  graven  images,  of 
idols,  or  of  false  gods,  he  might  exalt  his  Son,  and 
require  men  and  angels  to  pay  Divine  honours  to 
his  name. 

-  It  may  still  be  thought,  that  if  the  Son  be  not  the 
self-existent  God,  but  has  been  exalted  by  God  as 
an  object  of  Divine  honours,  then  God  has  given 
his  glory  to  another,  contrary  to  his  own  word.  It 
may  therefore  be  observed, 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  149 

4.  For  God  to  give  his  glory  to  another,  in  the 
sense  of  the  text  alluded  to,  must  imply  doing  some- 
thing respecting  another  or  authorizing  something 
to  be  done  respecting  another,  which  is  dishonorary 
to  himself.  To  glorify  another,  or  to  cause  another 
to  be  glorified,  in  a  manner  which  contributes  to 
his  own  glory,  is  perfectly  consistent  with  his  de- 
claration that  he  zoill  not  give  his  glory  to  another. 
To  make  out,  then,  that  there  is  so  much  as  the 
shadow  of  a  contradiction  in  the  case,  it  must  be 
made  to  appear,  that  to  pay  Divine  honours  to  the 
Son  of  God,  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  one  in 
whom  the  Father  is  ever  well  pleased,  is  dishonor 
rary  to  the  Father.  But  to  prove  this,  will  be  a 
task  which  probably  very  few  will  venture  to  un- 
dertake. 

By  those  who  have  urged  this  supposed  contra- 
diction, has  it  not  been  taken  for  granted,  that  the 
Son  of  God  may  be  a  distinct  Person  from  God  the 
Father,  and  yet  the  self-same  Being  ?  And  should 
this,  sir,  be  taken  for  granted  ?  But  if  it  be,  still 
the  texts  which  they  rely  upon  for  the  support  of  the 
supposed  contradiction,  do  as  fully  import  a  prohi- 
bition of  Divine  honours  to  any  other  Person  but 
the  one  who  made  the  declarations,  as  to  any  other 
Being,  In  those  texts  God  does  not  represent  him- 
self as  three  Persons^  but  as  one  individual  Person — 
"  /  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else — Thou  shalt 
have  no  other  gods  before  me — /  am  the  Lord,  and 
my  glory  /  will  not  give  to  another." — Therefore, 
if  these  passages  amount  to  a  prohibition  of  paying 
Divine  honours  to  the  Son  of  God,  as  being  truly 
the  Son  of  God,  they  equally  prohibit  paying  Di- 
vine honours  to  the  Son  considered  as  a  distinct 
Person  from  the  Father,  whether  self  existent  oi'not* 
The  self-same  Person  is  represented  as  saying  at 
13* 


150  On  the  real  Divinity 

one  time,  /  am  the  Lord,  and  my  glory  I  will  not 
give  to  another — At  another  time  he  says  respect- 
ing the  Person  who  is  called  his  only  begotten  Son^ 
''  Let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him."  And, 
if  these  passages  wonld  involve  a  contradiction  on 
the  hypothesis  that  the  Son  is  a  Person  truly  de- 
rived from  the  Father,  they  involve  precisely  the 
samp  contradiction  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  So7i  is 
a  self -existent  Person  distinct  from  the  Father, 

Having  thus  endeavoured  to  show,  from  the 
Scriptures,  that  Divine  honours  are  due  to  the  Son 
of  God,  and  the  grounds  on  which  they  are  doe,  and 
also  to  obviate  what  has  been  viewed  by  some  as 
insurmountable  objections  te  the  theory,  you  will 
suffer  me  now  to  appeal  to  your  own  conseienceyi 
and  ask,  whether  my  views  of  the  honours  due  to 
the  Son  of  God  do  not  harmonize  with  your  own 
practical  views  and  feelings,  and  with  your  usual 
forms  of  speech  in  prayer  and  praise  ?  Reflections 
on  mv  own  former  views  and  feelings,  and  observa- 
tions in  regard  to  the  prayers  of  my  Athanasian 
brethren,  encourage  me  to  do  this. 

In  respect  to  my  own  experience,  adopting  the 
present  theory  has  given  no  occasion  to  vary  my 
forms  of  speech  from  what  was  natural  and  usual 
with  me  before,  in  regard  to  the  Son  of  God.  And 
it  is  observed,  that  the  prayers  of  my  Athanasian 
brethren,  so  far  as  the  Son  is  mentioned,  agree  with 
ray  present  views  ;  excepting  when  they  appear 
to  wish  to  introduce  some  particular  exp^es^iions  to 
oommimicate  or  support  their  particular  theory.  It 
may  not  then  be  amiss  to  class  myself  with  you 
and  them,  and  observe  how  roe  pray. 

We  occasionally  address  petitions  to  Christ  as 
the  Son  of  God,  the  Lord  of  all,  the  Redeemer  of 


and  Glory  of  Christ.  151 

our  souls,  or  the  Head  of  the  church.  We  some- 
times distinctly  thank  him  for  his  kindtiess  and  nur- 
cy  in  laying  down  his  life  for  our  redemj)iion  ;  and 
for  the  benefits  we  receive  through  his  mediation 
and  atonement.  But  in  this  particular,  perhaps  we 
are  generally  deficient ;  and  much  less  frequently 
bring  the  Son  into  view  in  our  prayers  than  would 
be  proper.  In  our  ascriptions  of  praise,  at  the 
close  of  our  prayers,  we  frequently  and  properly 
mention  the  Father  and  the  Son  as  two  distinct 
Persons,  or  intelligent  Beings. 

But  in  general,  we  address  our  prayers  to  God  as 
one  distinct  Person  and  Being.  We  bless  the  name 
of  this  x)NE  God  for  his  kindness  and  love  in  giving 
his  own  Son  to  die  for  our  offences.  And  the  forms 
of  speech  which  we  use  clearly  convey  the  idea 
that  God  is  one  distinel  intelligent  Being,  and  his 
Son  another;  as  distinct  as  any  other  Father  and 
Son.  We  beseech  God  to  bestow  favours  through 
the  mediation  and  atonement  of  his  Son.  We  plond 
with  God  on  the  ground  of  what  his  Son  has  done 
and  suffered  (or  us.  We  adore  God  for  having  ex- 
alted his  Son  as  Lord  of  all,  and  making  him  Head 
over  all  things  to  the  church.  And,  in  conformity 
to  the  language  of  Scripture,  we  make  use  of  thou- 
sands of  expressions  which  denote  as  clear  a  dis- 
tinction between  God  and  his  Son,  as  are  ever 
made  between  Abraham  and  Isaac. 

And,  however  inconsistent  such  a  distinction  may 
be  with  the  Athanasian  theory,  it  is  a  distinction  to 
which  we  are  naturally  led  by  our  intimacy  with 
the  laf)guage  of  the  Bible.  And  these  forms  of 
speech  are,  it  is  tfc(outi:ht,  a  correct  expression  of 
the  habitual  and  practical  views  even  of  Athana- 
sians  themselves,  in  their  c/ero/ion«/ exercises.  Be- 
lieving this  to  be  the  case,  and  that  it  is  consistent 


132  On  the  real  Divinity 

with  the  manner  in  which  Divine  honours  are  paid 
to  the  Son  of  God  by  saints  and  angels  in  heaven^ 
who  can  believe  that  the  Christian  church  have 
been  guilty  of"  idolatry'^^  in  the  homage  they  have 
paid  to  the  "Lamb  of  God?" 

In  considering  him  as  the  self-existent  God,  it  is 
thought  my  brethren  have  been  under  a  mistake ; 
but  not  in  considering  him  as  an  object  of  Divine 
honours;  nor  is  it  apprehended  that  in  their  ha- 
bitual and  devotional  feelings  they  have  ascribed 
more  honour  than  is  due  to  his  name.  And  so  far 
as  they  have  fallen  short  of  believing^  feelings  and 
acknowledging  the  awful  realities  of  the  personal 
abasement^  suffering,  and  death  of  the  Son  of  God, 
so  far  they  have,  in  my  opinion,  in  one  particular, 
fallen  short  of  giving  him  due  praise. 

The  ten  times  ten  thousand,  and  the  thousands 
of  thousands,  who  were  observed  by  John  as  paying 
honours  to  the  Son  of  God,  did  not  say,  Worthy  is 
the  Lamb  who  united  himself  to  a  man  that  was 
slain ;  nor  did  they  say,  Worthy  is  the  "  Messi- 
ah^s  humanity''^ — that  was  slain  :  but,  "  Worthy  is 
the  Lamb,  that  was  slain,  to  receive,"  &;c. 

In  a  preceding  verse,  the  redeemed  do  not  say, 
Thou  art  worthy  to  take  the  book,  and  to  loose  the 
seven  seals  thereof;  for  the  man  to  whom  thou  wast 
united  was  slain  :  but,  "  Thou  art  worthy — for 
THOU  WAST  SLAIN,  and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God 
by  THY  blood." 

Must  it  not,  sir,  appear  on  your  hypothesis, 
either  that  Divine  honours  were  paid  to  the  *'  MeS' 
siah'^s  humanity, ^^  or  that  the  self-existent  God  was 
personally  slain?  As  you  will  clipny  both  these  po- 
sitions, let  me  ask,  how  can  you  consistently  join 
the  song  of  the  redeemed,  till  you  renounce  your 


a?id  Glory  of  Christ,  153 

theory  ?     Can  you  ever,  consistently^  say,  Worthy 
is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain  ? 


POSTSCRIPT    TO    LETTER    VII.' 

So  far  as  I  have  had  opportunity  to  be  acquaint- 
ed with  the  views  of  others,  it  has  been,  in  general, 
professedly  conceded  by  Athanasians,  by  Arians, 
and  by  Socinians,  that  there  can  be  but  one  object 
of  Divine  honours  ;  and  that  if  Christ  be  not  per- 
sonally the  self-existent  God,  io  worship,  or  io  pray 
to  hirn,  must  be  idolatry. 

But,  sir,  are  not  God,  and  the  Son  at  his  right 
hand,  two  distinct  objects  ?  Are  not  God,  and  the 
Lamb,  two  distinct  objects  ?  When  God  said  re- 
specting his  Son,  ''''Let  all  the  angels  of  God  wor- 
ship  HIM,"  is  the  meaning  the  same  as  though  he 
had  said,  Let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  me? 
Suppose  an  earthly  king  should  exalt  his  own  son, 
and  give  him  the  right  hand  as  a  co-partner  with 
him  on  the  throne,  and  require  all  his  subjects  to 
*'  bow  the  knee''^  and  pay  royal  honours  to  the  son  ; 
would  not  the  father  and  the  son  be  still  two  dis- 
tinct objects?  And  have  we  not  reason  to  believe, 
that  it  is  in  allusion  to  such  events  that  we  have  it 
represented  in  the  Scripture,  that  God  hath  exalted 
HIS  Son  with  his  own  right  hand  ? 

If  God  has,  in  very  deed,  given  all  things  into 
the  hands  of  the  Son,  and  exalted  him  to  be  Lord 
of  all ^  can  it  be  idolatry  to  worship  him  according 
to  the  rank  assigned  him  by  God  ?  Can  it  be  im- 
pro[)er  or  criminal  to  pray  to  him  who  is  thus  able 
to  help  us,  and  to  praise  and  thank  him  for  what  he 
is,  and  for  what  h4*has  done  for  our  sakes  ? 

When  you  say  that  it  must  be  idolatry  to  wor- 
ship or  pray  to  Christ,  unless  he  be  the  self-exist- 
ent God,  do  you  not  implicitly  accuse  God  of  estab- 


154  On  the  real  Divinity/ 

lishing  idolatry  ?  For  the  Divine  honours  to  be 
paid  to  the  Son  are  instituted  by  God,  Besides,  do 
you  not  arbitrarily  attach  ideas  to  the  terms  worship 
and  prayer,  which  do  not  necessarily  or  naturally 
belong  to  them  ?  viz.  That  -worship  anil  prayer  im- 
ply, that  the  object  worshipped  and  addressed  is 
acknowledged  lo  be  personally  the  self-existent 
God.  by  him  who  worships  or  prays. 

But  by  what  authority  do  you  attach  such  ideas 
to  the  words  worship  and  prayer  .^  May  not  a  child 
bow  the  knee  to  his  father,  and  ask  forgiveness  for 
an  offence,  or  pray  for  favours  which  the  father  can 
bestow  ?  May  not  a  subject  do  the  same  before  a 
worthy  king  '/  The  word  worship  is  used  to  express 
the  reverence  or  respect  paid  by  an  inferiour  to  a 
superiour  ;  and  in  proportion  to  the  degree  of  dis- 
parity, is  the  degree  oi  homage  and  respect  which 
is  due, 

Shiill  it,  sir,  be  deemed  consistent  for  a  poor 
malefactor  to  bow  the  knee  to  one  whom  the  people 
have  exalted  as  president  of  the  United  States,  and 
supplicate  favour?  And  shall  it  be  deemed  a  crime 
to  make  supplication  to  Him  whom  God  hath  ex' 
alted  with  his  own  right  hand,  to  be  a  Prince  and 
a  Saviour,  to  give  repentance  and  remission  of 
sins  ?  It  is  not  indeed  proper  to  pray  to  the  presi- 
dent as  to  the  self-existent  God  ;  but  it  is  proper 
to  address  petitions  to  him,  and  to  pay  homage  to 
him  according  to  his  rank  or  dignity.  Nor  is  it 
in  my  view  proper,  in  addressing  prayers  to  Christ, 
to  consider  him  as  the  self-existeni  God.  Yet  it  is 
proper  to  pray  to  him,  and  to  worship  him  as  Lord 
OF  ALL ;  as  a  Being  whom  God  hath  seen  fit  to 
"exalt  with  his  own  right  hand  ;^^  and  as  one  in 
whom  God,  by  all  his  fulness,  dwells. 


und  Glory  of  Christ,  155 

And  how,  sir,  can  v;e  be  in  subjection  to  God, 
unless  we  cheerfully  ''  bow  the  knee^^  to  the  Son, 
and  acknowledge  him  to  be  **  Lord,  to  t!>e  glory 
of  God  the  Father?'*'^  The  worship  paid  to  the  Son 
is  called  Divine;  not  because  it  is  divinel)  requir- 
ed; but  because  in  my  view  the  Son  is  a  Divine 
Person  ;  a  Person  of  Divine  Origin  and  Dignity, 
of  Divine  Fulness  and  Authority, 

If  you,  sir,  are  surprised  to  find  me  thus  approv- 
ing the  idea  of  paying  Divine  honours  to  two  dis^- 
tinct  objects,  will  you  not  be  still  more  surprised, 
should  it  be  demonstrated,  that,  on  your  theory, 
Divine  honours  must  be  paid  to  three  distinct  ob- 
jects ? 

Your  theory  supposes  three  self-existent  Persons 
or  Agents  ;  and  each  of  these  three  distinct  Agents 
you  consider  as  an  object  of  Divine  worship.  As 
you  disavow  the  idea  of  three  Gods,  it  would  be  un- 
generous to  accuse  you  of  worshipping  three  dis- 
tinct Gods,  But  that  you  profess  to  worship  three 
distinct  objects^  as  God,  how  can  you  in  truth  deny  ? 
Is  not  every  distinct  person  qt  agent  a  distinct  object 
of  contemplation  ?  And  are  not  three  distinct  per- 
sons as  clearly  three  distinct  objects  as  three  trees  ? 
Is  it  possible  for  you,  or  any  other  man,  to  form  an 
idea  of  three  distinct  persons  which  does  not  include 
three  distinct  objects? 

It  has,  sir,  been  urged,  on  your  side  of  the  ques- 
tion, that  we  can  easily  conceive  of  the  Father  as 
one  distinct  Person^  of  I  he  Son  as  another  distinct 
Person,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a  third  distinct 
Person  ;  and  the  difficulty  is,  to  conceive  how  these 
three  distinct  Persons  Can  be  but  one  Being,  or  one 
God.  This  part  of  the  hypothesis  is  acknowledged 
to  be  mysterious  and  totally  inconceivable,  Ynur 
worship,  therefore,  must  be  paid  to  the  three  Per- 


156  On  the  real  Divinity 

sons  as  to  three  distinct  objects;  for  if  you  worship 
the  three  persons  at  all,  you  must  worship  them  ac- 
cording to  your  conceptions,  and  not  according  to 
what  you  do  not  conceive.  If  you  have  no  ccncep- 
tion  of  the  three,  otherwise  than  as  three  distinct 
Persons^  you  can  have  no  conception  of  them 
otherwise  than  as  three  distinct  objects. 

From  my  own  experience  as  an  Athanasian,  suf- 
fer me  to  appeal,  sir,  to  your  conscience,  whether 
you  e\  er  did  conceive  of  the  Father  and  the  Son 
otherwise  than  as  tivo  distinct  objects.  When  you 
address  the  Father,  and  ask  favours  through  the 
mediation  of  his  Son^  do  you  not  conceive  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son  as  two  distinct  objects  ?  And 
do  you  not  consider  yourself  as  addle^si^g  one  of 
the  distinct  objects,  and  not  the  other  ?  When  you 
address  a  prayer  directly  to  the  Son,  as  the  Head 
of  the  church,  do  you  not  conceive  him  as  an  object 
distinct  from  the  Father?  And  when  you  consi- 
der the  three  Persons  as  one  God^  do  you  not  consi- 
der them  as  being  as  distinctly  three  objects  as 
THREE  MEMBERS  of  ONE  CouNcix  ?  Moreover,  do 
you  not  love  the  Son  of  God  as  a  distinct  object  from 
the  Father,  and  the  Father  as  a  distinct  object  from 
the  Son  ?  If  you  speak  of  the  three  Persons  as 
three  objects^  if  you  conceive  of  them  as  three  objects, 
and  if  you  love  them  as  three  distinct  objects^  is  it 
not  undeniable  that  you  worship  them  as  three  ob- 
jects ? 

If  you  say  that  worshipping  one  of  the  three  is 
worshipping  the  whole,  why  are  you  not  satisfied 
with  the  worship  ofSocinians?  They  profess  to 
worship  one  of  the  three^  as  possessing  all  possible 
perfection.  But  with  this  you  are  not  satisfied. 
And  why  not?  Because,  in  your  view,  the  other 
ivoo  Persons  are  neglected  and  treated  with  disho- 


ajid  Glory  of  Christ.  157 

nour.  The  other  two  Persons,  you  say,  are  wor- 
thy of  the  5«me  honours  as  the  Father.  And  does 
it  not  appear  from  this,  that  you  consider  three  dis- 
tinct objects  as  worthy  of  Divine  honours?  Besides 
is  it  not  a  common  thing  for  writers  and  preachers 
to  take  pains  to  prove  that  each  of  the  three  Per- 
sons are  worthy  of  equal  honours  ?  And  are  they  not 
fond  of  using  expressions  of  this  import  in  prayor? 
Is  it  not,  then,  evident,  that  they  do  consider  the 
three    distinct    Persons    as    three    distinct    objects  ? 

When  we  have  but  one  object  in  view,  we  do  not 
say  equal  honours  are  due  to  that  object ;  it  is,  then, 
in  view  of  three  distinct  objects  that  they  say  that 
equal  honours  are  due  to  the  Father,  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  And  every  time  they  say  this, 
they  implicitly  say  there  are  three  distinct  objects 
equally  worthy  of  Divine  honours. 

Now,  sir,  is  it  not  clearly  evinced  that  your  theo- 
ry does  imply  the  worship  of  three  distinct  objects 
AS  God  ?  Yet  to  fix  upon  you  the  charge  of  wor- 
shipping ^Ar^e  Gods^  is  not  in  my  heart;  doubtless 
while  you  worship  the  three  distinct  objects,  you  do 
it  conscientiously,  believing  that  in  some  mysteri- 
ous, inconceivable  manner,  these  three  distinct  ob- 
jects are  so  united  as  to  be  but  one  God.  Such  was 
the  case  with  me,  and  such  it  is  believed  is  the  case 
with  you. 

Suppose  a  venerable  council,  composed  of  A,  B, 
and  C,  by  whose  benevolence  you  have  been  bene- 
fited— you  address  to  them  a  letter  of  gratitude — In 
the  first  place  you  address  them  as  one  body  or  coun- 
cil ^  then  you  distinctly  thank  Jl,  as  moderator,  for 
proposing  the  plan  ;  you  thank  B,  as  an  advocate, 
who  has  exposed  himself  to  insults  for  your  sake  ; 
you  thank  C,  for  some  special  agency  in  carrying 
into  effect  the  result  of  council — You  then  conclude 
14 


158  On  the  real  Divinity 

with  an  ascription  of  equal  thanks  to  A^  B,  and  C, 
as  one  council.  Let  me  ask,  iiave  you  not  distinct- 
ly addressed  three  distinct  objects  2 

Is  it  not,  then,  in  vain  to  pretend  that  you  wor- 
ship but  one  object^  while  you,  in  your  prayers,  dis- 
tinctly name  three,  and  thank  each  for  some  dis- 
tinct agency. 


LETTER  VIII. 

The  tzoo  theories  compared,  in  respect  to  Christ,  co?}- 
sidered  as  a  Sufferer  on  the  cross,  as  the  Saviour 
of  the  world,  and  the  Lord  of  the  universe, 

REV.  SIR, 

Perhaps  it  may  be  useful  to  enter  into  a  more 
critical  examination  of  your  theory,  as  it  respects 
the  character  of  him  by  whom  the  atonement  was 
made  for  the  sins  of  the  worlds 

For  the  purpose  of  examination,  let  it  be  admit- 
ted as  true,  that  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  two 
self-existent  and  co-equal  Persons,  and  that  the  in- 
carnation of  the  Son  implies  his  union  to  such  a 
proper  man  as  you  suppose  ,Jesus  of  Nazareth  to 
have  been.  Let  us  in  the  next  place  make  the 
supposition  that  the  Man  Jesus  had  been  united  to 
the  Father  instead  of  the  Son,  in  as  strict  a  manner 
as  it  is  possible  that  God  and  Man  should  be  united. 
If  the  Father  be  equal  to  the  Son,  a  union  of  the 
Man  to  the  Father  would  imply  precisely  the  same 
dignity  as  a  union  with  the  Son,  Then  suppose, 
that  in  that  state  of  union  with  the  Father,  the 
Man  Jesus  had  suffered  on  the  cross  ;,  would  not  his 


mid  Glory  of  Chrisl,  159 

sufferings  have  been  of  precisely  the  sanae  value  as 
an  atonement,  as  in  the  case  of  his  suffering  in 
union  with  the  second  Person  ?  This,  it  is  pre- 
sumed, you  will  not  deny. 

Permit  me  now  to  ask,  whether  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  that  Man^  could,  with  any  propriety, 
be  called  the  sufferings  and  death  of  God  the  Fa- 
ther ?  Moreover  as  on  your  theory  the  value  of  the 
sufferings  of  the  cross  results  not  from  the  dignity 
of  the  real  sufferer,  but  from  the  digriity  of  the  Per- 
son to  whom  the  Man  was  united,  we  will  further 
suppose  that  this  Man,  in  a  state  of  union  with  the 
Faiher  was  called  the  Son  of  God  ;  would  not  the 
atonement  for  the  sins  of  the  world  have  been  pre- 
cisely the  same  that  it  is  on  your  hypothesis  ?  The 
SUFFERER  would  be  precisely  the  same,  and  the  Per- 
son with  whom  the  Man  was  united  would  be  of 
precisely  the  same  dignity.  And  on  this  sup- 
position, would  there  not  be  a  far  greater  propriety 
in  saying  that  the  Son  of  God  died  for  us,  than  there 
is  on  yours?  If  that  Man  united  with  the  Father 
should  be  called  the  Son  of  God,  and  did  really  lay 
down  his  life  for  us,  it  might  then  be  a  truth  that  a 
Son  of  God  did  die  for  us.  But  on  your  theory, 
what  propriety  could  there  be  in  such  a  represen- 
tation, any  farther  than  the  Man  is  considered  as 
the  Son  of  God  ?  But  as  you  consider  the  Son  of 
God  as  having  complete  existence  and  even  self-exis- 
tence distinct  irom  iheMaji,  the  incarnation  implied 
a  union  of  two  intelligent  Beings,  as  properly  so  as 
Gabriel  and  Adam.  The  first  of  these  "  suffered 
not  in  the  least,"  but  on  the  Man  was  laid  the  ini- 
quities of  us  all. 

What  then,  sir,  is  the  difference  in  the  character 
of  him  who  really  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on 
the  tree,  considered  on  your  theory,  or  on  the  So- 


^60  On  the  real  Diviniiy 

cinian  theory  ?  You  may  indeed  suppose  the  Man 
to  be  more  iniimately  united  to  God,  than  is  sup- 
posed by  Socinians.  But  the  second  self-existent 
Person,  or  even  a  pre-existent  Son  of  God,  suffered 
no  more  according  to  your  theory  than  according 
to  theirs.  The  sufferings,  on  both  theories,  were 
all  really  endured  by  a  proper  J\Ia?i,  whose  first  ex- 
istence  began  less  than  forty  years  before  his 
death  ;  a  man  who  never  had  possessed  even  the 
shadow  of  pre-existent  dignity,  riches,  or  glory, 
and  who  was  in  no  higher  sense  the  Son  of  God, 
than  Abraham  or  Moses.  You  may  indeed  say, 
that  "  the  Man  Jesus  was  united  to  the  Person  of 
the  Son  of  God  ;"  but  this  ivery  assertion  implies 
that  the  Son  and  the  Man  were  two  distinct  intel- 
ligences ;  and  that  the  Man  was  not  truly  the  Son 
of  God,  but  another  intelligent  being  united  to  the 
Son  of  God. 

Suffer  me  now',  sir,  in  an  impartial  manner,  to 
exhibit  in  contrast,  the  different  theories  we  have 
adopted  as  they  respect  the  character  of  Him  who 
was  really  slain  for  us,  and  who  6ore  our  sins  in  his 
own  body  on  the  tree. 

On  your  part  the  case  stands  thus,  The  suffer- 
ings of  the  cross  were  wholly  endured  by  a  Man, 
who  was  somehow  mysteriously  united  to  a  second 
self-existent  Person,  whom  you  call  the  Son  of  God. 
Yet  this  Person  you  call  the  Son  of  God,  endured 
no  share  in  the  sufferings  of  the  cross;  the  Man 
only  suffered  and  died.  This  real  sufferer  had 
never  enjoyed  one  moment  of  pre-existent  dignity 
or  glory.  He  knew  nothing  what  it  was  to  be  in 
the  Father's  bosom;  and  as  he  never  had  been 
rich,  he  knew  nothing  what  it  was  to  become  poor, 
in  any  other  sense  than  is  known  by  other  poor 


and  Glory  of  Christ*  161 

children  who  are  born  into  the  world.  His  '*  being 
born,  and  that  in  a  low  condition,"  was  a  matter 
to  which  he  had  never  consented.  He  lived,  in- 
deed, a  life  perfectly  exemplary,  and  died  a  death 
truly  distressing.  But  this  Son^  to  whom  you  sup- 
pose this  Man  was  united,  was  so  far  from  sharing 
a  part  in  the  suffering  of  the  cross,  that  he  only 
enabled  the  Man  to  bear  a  greater  portion  of  suf- 
ferings than  he  would  otherwise  have  been  able 
to  endure.  But  can  this  circumstance  be  con- 
sidered as  any  real  favour  to  the  Man  ?  Indeed, 
sir,  can  you  see  that  this  Man  ever  received  the 
least  benefit  from  a  union  with  your  supposed  self- 
existent  Son,  from  the  time  he  was  born  in  the 
manger,  to  the  moment  he  expired  on  the  cross  ? 
So  far  as  the  inspired  writings  have  informed  me, 
this  Man  derived  all  the  benefits  which  he  did 
derive,  from  God  the  Father.  And  why  should  it 
be  thought  to  contribute  greatly  to  the  dignity  of 
this  Man  to  be  united  to  a  Person  from  whom  he 
derived  no  manner  of  assistance  or  support,  unless 
it  were  to  enable  him  to  endure  a  greater  portion 
of  redl  sufferings  ? 

On  the  other  hypothesis,  the  sufferer  on  the  cross 
was  a  very  different  character — He  was  truly  the 
Son  of  the  living  God,  had  long  been  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Father  before  the  foundations  of  the  earth 
were  laid,  "  as  one  brought  up  with  him,  and  was 
daily  his  delight."  He  was  highly  honoured  by 
the  Father  in  the  great  work  of  creation  ;  for  God 
created  all  things  by  him.  In  him  it  pleased  the 
Father  that  all  fulness  should  dwell.  He  was  as 
intimately  united  to  the  Father,  as  it  is  possible  the 
Man  Jesus  should  be,  on  your  theory,  to  a  second 
self-existent  Person.  He  was  honoured  by  itic 
14* 


162  On  the  real  Divinily 

Father  as  the  Angel  of  his  presence  on  the  most  so- 
lemn and  interesting  occasions,  and  was  truly  in 
the  FORM  OF  God  :  for  he  was  the  "  image  of  the 
invisible  God."  But  while  in  this  state  of  pre- 
existent  glory,  he  beheld  our  perishing  state ;  he 
saw  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  was  not 
sufficient  to  take  away  sin  ;  and  he  said  to  his  Fa-* 
ther,  ''  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  wouldst  not,  but 
a  BODY  hast  thou  prepared  me" — "  Lo,  I  come  to 
do  thy  will,  O  God."  He  laid  aside  the  form  or 
God,  and  voluntarily  became  united  to  the  body 
which  God  had  prepared,  and  was  thus  "  made  in 
the  likeness  of  men,''''  And  being  found  in  fashion 
as  a  man,  he  humbled  hin^iself  and  became  obe- 
dient unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross." 
Such,  sir,  is  the  Lamb  of  God  who  takelh  away 
the  sin  of  the  world.  This  is  the  character,  in 
view  of  which,  tm  thousand  times  ten  thousand 
tongues  sing,    Worthy  is  the  Lamh  that  was  slain. 

Having  thus  carried  out  the  two  accounts,  let 
us  cast  them  up,'  that  we  may  clearly  see  the  dis- 
parity. As  you  cannot  deny  that  as  much  dignity 
may  be  derived  from  a  union  with  the  one  God,  the 
Father^  as  from  a  union  w^ith  a  second  self- existent 
Person  ;  in  respect  to  the  character  of  the  real  suf- 
ferer, the  case  will  stand  thus  : 

On  your  part,  the  sufferer  is  a  Man  with  such 
dignity  as  he  may  derive  from  a  union  with  a  second 
seif-existey\t  Person, 

On  my  part,  the  sufferer  is  that  glorious  Son,  by 
whom  God  created  all  things  in  heaven  and  earth, 
possessing  all  the  dignity  f which  can  result  from 
the  most  pei-fect  union  with  theo/i«  God,  ih^  Fa- 
ther, 

The  difference,  then,  in  the  character  of  the  suf- 
ferer, is,  at  leabt,  as  great  as  all  the  difference  be- 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  163 

Cvvefen  the  constituted  Creator  of  heaven  and  earih, 
and  the  mere  Man  or  human  nature  of  your  Mes- 
siah. 

You  have,  sir,  too  much  candour  to  deny,  that 
the  real  sufferer  is  a  character  of  unspeakably 
greater  importance  on  this  theory,  than  on  yours. 
•But  still  you  may  think,  that  Christ,  considered  as 
the  Saviour  and  Lord  of  all,  is  greater  on  your  hy- 
pothesis than  he  is  on  mine.  This,  however,  may 
appear  to  be  only  imagination. 

We  are  perfectly  agreed  in  one  point,  viz.  That 
there  is  but  one  infinite  self-existent  God,  In  your 
view,  this  infinite  Gof?  consists  oi  three  self- existent 
Persons  ;  in  my  view,  the  one  infinite  God  is  but 
one  Person,  The  one  Person,  then,  on  my  theory, 
must  be  equal  to  the  three  Persons  of  your  theory, 
in  regard  io  fulness  and  sujiciency.  In  your  view, 
one  of  the  three  Persons  is  united  to  the  Man  or 
human  nature,  and  this  self-existent  Person  and  the 
Man  are  the  Saviour  and  Lord  of  all — In  my  view, 
the  Saviour  and  Lord  of  all  is  the  Son  of  the  living 
God,  and  by  nature  "  the  brightness  of  the  Father^s 
glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  Person  ;"  so 
united  to  the  one  infinite  God,  that  in  him  dwells, 
not  merely  one  of  three  Persons,  but  all  the  fulness 
of  the  Godhead  bodily. 

As,  in  yoar  view,  the  Deity  consists  of  three  dis- 
tinct Persons,  each  possessing  independent  fulness  ; 
and  as  but  one  ©f  these  Persons  is  supposed  to  be 
united  to  the  Man  Jes2is  ^  inquiry  might  be  made, 
whether  your  theory  does  not  naturally  suggest  the 
idea,  that  there  is  but  one  third  of  the  fulness  of 
God  implied  in  tl\p'  character  of  our  Lord  and  Sa- 
viour Jesus  Christ,  But  it  is  needless  to  urge  this. 
And  on  the  ground  already  stared,  the  matter  is 
submitted  to  every  impartial   mind,  whether  the 


164  On  the  real  Divinity 

character  of  the  Lord  Jesus  does  not  appear  vastly 
more  impressive  and  glorious  on  the  theory  now 
proposed,  than  on  the  Athanasian  hypothesis. 

It  may  possibly  be  urged  by  some,  that  if  Christ 
derived  his  existence  from  God,  as  a  Son  from  a 
Father,  he  must  be  as  incapable  of  suffering  as  the 
Father.  This  conclusion  is  not  admitted  as  re- 
sulting from  the  premises.  But  it  would  sooner 
be  admitted  that  it  is  possible  with  God  to  render 
himself  c^pMe  of  suffering  by  union  with  a  human 
body,  than  that  the  Son  of  God  did  not  suffer  on 
the  cross.  My  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  God 
and  his  Son  is  all  derived  from  the  Bible.  This 
informs  me,  that  Christ  is  God's  own  Son  ;  and 
that  "  though  he  were  a  Son,  yet  learned  he  obe- 
dience by  the  things  which  he  suffered."  And 
who  is  so  well  skilled  in  the  philosophy  of  Divine 
Jsl'ature,  as  to  be  able  to  contradict  this  testimony 
in  either  particular  ?  Is  it  not  more  safe  for  us  to 
receive  the  Divine  testimony  as  stated  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, than  to  reject  it  by  philosophizing  on  unre- 
vealed  properties  of  Divine  Nature  ? 

How  often,  sir,  have  our  brethren,  on  your  side, 
urged  our  ignorance  of  the  DrviNE  Nature,  as  a 
reason  why  we  should  not  reject  revealed  doctrines 
concerning  God  and  his  Son  ?  Yet,  have  not  the 
same  brethren,  on  the  ground  of  their  supposed 
knowledge  of  the  Divine  Nature,  implicitly  denied 
and  explained  away  two  of  the  plainest  truths  which 
are  contained  in  the  Bibie  ?  Are  there,  sir,  any 
two  propositions  more  clearly  affirmed  \n  the  Scrip- 
tures, than  these,  viz.  That  Jesus  Chri^i  is  God's 
Son  ;  and,  that  the  Son  of  pod  suffered  and  died  on 
the  cross  ?  Yet  how  many  n.illions  of  pages  have 
been  written,  and  how  many  millions  of  sermons 
have  been  preached,  to  prove  that  Jesus  Christ  is 


and  Glory  of  Christ,       '  165 

so  far  from  hems; properly  the  Son  of  God,  that  he 
is  the  VERY  God,  the  very  Being,  whose  Son  the 
Scriptures  deHare  him  to  be  !  Yea,  the  very  Be- 
ing who  proclaimed  from  heaven,  "  This  is  my 
beloved  Son  P"^  And  have  not  the  numerous,  plain, 
a.nd  unequivocal  representations  of  Scripture,  res- 
pecting the  sufferings  and  death  of  the  Son  of  God, 
been  so  explained  away  as  to  imply  no  more  than 
that  a  Man  or  mere  human  nature  suffered  and  died, 
to  whom  the  Son  of  God  was  mysteriously  united  ? 
And  what  is  all  this,  sir,  short  ni philosophizing  upon 
Divine  Nature,  and  drawing  conclusions  at  an 
extraordinary  rate  !  Would  Gabriel  himself  pre- 
tend to  so  much  knowledge  of  Divine  Nature  as 
thus  to  contradict  Divine  Revelation  ? 

Though  I  may  have  been  accused  of  being  "  too 
mathematical  for  the  Bible,"  yet  it  is  my  desire 
never  to  be  so  philosophical  as  to  prefer  my  own 
deductions  from  fancied  properties  at  the  Divine 
Nature,  to  the  most  explicit  delarations  of  the 
word  of  God.  But  while  thus  disapproving  the 
conduct  of  my  brethren,  the  Monitor  within  whis- 
pers. Such  has  been  thy  own  inconsistency  :  and 
perhaps,  as  great  iiiconsistency,  in  some  other 
point,  still  lurks  undiscovered — "  Let  him  that 
thinkelh  he  standelh  take  heed  lest  he  fall.""^ 

*  Either  while  asleep  or  awake,  the  following  scene  has  some- 
times been  presented  to  my  imagination — 

The  writer  of  these  Letters  is  called  before  an  Ecclesiastical 
Council  to  answer  to  a  char;;e  of  heresy.  The  accusers,  with 
solemn  formality,  j|resent  against  him  the  following  articles  of 
charge : 

1.  He  has  publiek^y  taught,  That  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of 
God,  God's  owijr  Son. 

2.  He  has  abo  taught.  That  the  Son  of  God  did  reallt/ suJUi' 
on  the  cross  for  the  sins  of  the  world. 


166  On  the  real  Divinity 


rOSTSCRIPT. 

Since  writing  the  foregoing  Letter,  it  has  occur- 
red to  rae,  that  there  is  one  mode  of  illustrating 
and  supporting  the  dignity  of  the  sufferer^  which 
has  been  adopted  by  some  Athanasians,  that  has 
not  been  particularly  considered.  As  a  wonrian  of 
low  rank  is  exalted  by  marriage  to  a  worthy  prince 

The  Council  inquire  of  the  accused  in  what  sense  he  understands 
those  propositions. 

He  replies,  '  According  to  the  common  acceptation  and  most 
7ialural  meaning  of  the  words.' 

The  result  follows — 

*  This  Council  are  of  opinion,  that  the  said  accused  is  guilty  of 
heresy.  Vox  though  in  some  mysterious  sense^  Christ  is  called  Uie 
Son  of  God,  yet  he  is  not  the  Son  of  God  according  to  the  com- 
mon acceptation  of  the  term  Son  :  so  far  from  this,  he  is  personal- 
ly the  on/j/  true  God;  yea,  "Jesus  is  that  God,  besides  whom 
there  is  no  o/Aer."t  And  though  it  be  represented  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, that  the  Sojr  of  God  suffered ;  yet  as  he  is  personally  the 
immutable  God,  it  was  impossible  that  he  should  really  suffer^ 
The  Man  or  human  nature  suffered,  which  was  united  to  the 
Person  of  the  Son  of  God  :  The  sufferings,  therefore,  are  called 
the  sufferings  of  the  Son  of  God,  It  is  in  our  view  infinitely  de- 
grading to  Christ,  to  say,  that  he  is  frope'rly  and  truly  ^he  So:v  of 
God  ;  or  to  say,  that  He  did  really  suffer  the  death  of  the  cross.' 
— Thus  far  the  result. 

It  has,  however,  been  intimated  to  me,  that  some  of  our  breth- 
ren are  prepared  to  evade  all  I  have  written  on  the  sufferings  of 
the  Son  of  God,  by  saying  that  they  ever  professed  to  believe  that 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  he  suffered  on  the  cross.  I  have, 
sir,  aimed  honestly  to  state  the  real  difference  of  sentiment  be- 
tween us  on  those  two  points  If,  in  any  respect,  I  have  misap- 
prehended 3''our  theory,  1  shall  rejoice  in  being  corrected.  And  if 
indeed  you  do  believe  that  Christ  is  truly  the  Son  of  God,  and  that 
HE  really  suffered  on  the  cross,  I  shall  be  happy  in  being  informed 
that  there  is  no  ground  of  controversy  between  us.  But  if  1  have 
not  mistaken  your  theory,  it  is  believed  that  you  have  too  much 
generosity  of  soul  and  uprightness  of  heart,  to  attempt  to  evade  the 
/orce  of  truth  by  a  mere  quibble  upon  words. 

t  Mr.  Jones— page  3.' 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  167 

or  potentate,  so  it  has  been  supposed  that  the  Man 
Jesus  or  the  human  nature  was  exalted  hy  union 
with  the  Son  of  God,  Upon  this  hypothesis,  let 
it  be  observed, 

1.  When  this  ground  is  taken,  the  dignity  of  the 
real  sufferer  is  supposed  to  result  siraply  from  union 
with  a  Person  of  infinite  dignity.  The  queen,  after 
marriage,  takes  rank  from  her  royal  husband  :  so  It 
is  supposed  that  the  Man  Jesus  is  exalted  by  union 
with  the  Son  of  God.  It  is  true,  that  the  king  and 
queen,  in  a  certain  sense,  are  one  ;  but  not  in  such 
a  sense  that  the  obedience  or  the  death  of  the  queen 
might  be  properly  considered  as  the  obedience  or 
the  death  of  the  king.  And  if  a  king  for  a  certain 
purpose,  had  engaged  to  obey  and  to  die,  his  be- 
coming married  to  a  woman  of  low  rank,  and  caus- 
ing her  to  die  instead  of  himself,  would  not  be  es- 
teemed very  honourable  conducU 

2.  The  Scripture  representation  is,  that  the  Son 
OF  God  did  really  abase  himself,  and  become  poor, 
for  our  sakes.  But  on  the  hypothesis  now  before 
us,  the  scene  is  changed — Instead  of  abasing  him- 
self, and  taking  on  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  he 
took  to  himself  one  who  was  naturally  in  the  form 
of  a  servant,  and  exalted  the  Man  instead  oT  abas- 
ing himself — Instead  of  being  "  made  in  the  like- 
ness of  men,"  he  raised  a  man  to  the  likeness  or 
dignity  of  God— Instead  of  dying  himself  he  caus- 
ed the  Mayi  to  die  to  whom  he  was  united. 

It  seems  to  have  been  the  genera)  idea,  that  the 
Son  of  God  became  united  to  the  Man  or  human 
nature,  that  he  might  be  in  a  situation  to  obey  and 
to  suffer.  And  yet,  on  your  theory,  it  was  just  as 
impossible  that  he  should  obey  and  suffer  after  the 
union  as  it  was  before.  Dr.  Hopkins  expressly 
says,  that  "  this  personal  union  of  the  Divine  na- 


168  On  the  real  Divinity 

ture,  or  of  God  ihe  second  Person  in  the  Godhead, 
with  the  human  nature,  does  not  cause  or  suppose 
any  change  in  the  former;  all  the  change,  or  that 
is  changeable,  is  in  the  human  nature, ^"^  [System, 
vol.  I.  p.  41 1.] — By  the  ^'  Divine  nature,  or  God  the 
second  Person  in  the  GodheadV  ihe  Doctor  njeant 
the  Son  of  God.  The  Son  of  God,  therefore,  ex- 
perienced no  change,  either  in  becoming  united  to 
the  Man  or  human  nature,  nor  in  consequence  of 
this  union — He  was  then  in  precisely  the  same 
situation  in  regard  to  obedience  and  suffering  after 
the  union,  that  he  was  before.  What  then,  sir, 
has  the  Son  or  God  either  done  or  suffered  for 
our  salvation  ?  And  why  will  you  pretend  that 
he  became  united  to  a  Man  that  he  might  obey 
and  suffer  ? 

3.  If  a  mere  Man,  by  virtue  of  a  union  with  the 
Son  of  God,  might  derive  such  dignity  as  to  atone 
for  the  sins  of  the  world,  it  is  evident  that  the  same 
dignity  might  result  from  the  same  mysterious 
union  between  the  same  Man  and  the  Father.  And 
as  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  never  spake  of  his  union 
with  a  second  Divine  Person,  but  often  spake  of 
his  union  with  the  Father,  the  probability  would 
be  much  in  favour  of  the  idea  that  his  union  was 
with  the  Father. — If,  then,  the  Socinians  would 
only  add  to  their  theory  the  idea  of  a  mysterious 
union  between  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  and  God  the 
Father,  what  would  be  the  difference  between 
your  Saviour  and  theirs  ?  It  is  not  in  my  power 
to  discern  that  there  would  be  so  much  as  one 
shade  of  difference.  The  Man  Jesus,  considered 
separately  from  his  union  with  the  Deity,  is  per- 
haps as  great  on  their  theory  as  on  yours;  nor 
will  you  pretend  that  the  Son  is  greater  than  the 


and  Glory  of  Christ.  169 

Father.  If  the  Socinians  would  only  annex  that 
one  idea  to  their  theory,  it  does  not  appear  that 
you  would  have  the  least  ground  to  dispute  with  then\ 
about  the  greatness  of  the  Saviour,  however  much 
you  might  dispute  about  the  number  of  self-exist- 
ent Persons. — Be  not,  sir,  offended  at  this  com- 
parison :  my  aim  here  is  simply  to  urge  you  to 
inquiry,  and  to  a  thorough  examination  of  your 
own  theory. 


LETTER  IX. 

On  modem  Trinitarian  viczus  of  the  So7i  of  God, 
with  the  general  dissonance  respecting  three  Per- 
sons in  one  God. 

REV.    SIR, 

Since  the  publication  of  the  preceding  letters,  I 
have  found  that  a  great  portion  of  our  Trinitarian 
brethren  entertain  an  opinion  very  different  from 
yours,  and  from  what  has,  for  ages,  been  called  the 
orthodox  faith.  They  indeed  agree  with  you  that 
God  is  three  Persons ;  yet  they  say,  that  the  second 
Person  in  the  Trinity  was  not  originally  or  by  na- 
ture^  the  Son  of  God  ;  but  that  he  is  called  the  Son 
of  God  on  the  "  ground  of  a  constituted  charac- 
ter," or  that  he  became  the  Son  of  God  by  incar- 
nation^ &c.  &c.  This,  you  know,  is  a  flat  contra- 
diction to  the  opinion  of  those  who  were  reputed 
orthodox  in  former  ages.  Yet  these  modern  Tri- 
nitarians claim  to  be  considered  as  the  orthodox 
of  the  present  day  ;  nor  have  I  been  able  to  dis- 
cover much  inclination  in  you,  or  those  who  agree 
46 


170  On  the  real  Divinily 

with  you,  to  dispute  \he\v  claim.  Before  1  publish- 
ed my  letters  to  you,  1  was  aware  that  (his  novel 
opinion  had  been  adopted  by  some  of  our  brethren  ; 
bui  I  supposed  the  number  not  to  be  ^reat.  So  far 
as  it  respects  the  Sonship  of  Christ,  they  make  the 
same  oi)jections  to  your  views  that  they  do  to 
mine  ;  and  if  their  objections  to  my  views  are  of 
any  weight,  they  are  of  equal  weight  against  yours. 
Nearly  a  year  ago  1  addressed  a  private  letter  lo 
one  of  the  most  respectable  of  our  brethren  who  had 
taken  that  ground.  It  is  possible  that  the  letter 
might  have  miscarried  ;  it  is  certain  I  have  receiv- 
ed no  reply.  Report  says,  it  was  the  opinion  of 
that  brother,  that  it  was  best  for  the  Clergy  to  let 
the  sentiments  I  addressed  to  you  "die  of  them- 
selves a  natural  death,"  rather  than  to  be  at  the 
trouble  of  refuting  them.  He  rriight  think  (he  same 
in  regard  to  what  was  contained  in  my  letter  to 
him.  I  shall,  therefore,  give  you  a  copy  of  the 
letter  that  the  whole  may  live  or  "  ofze"  together. 
The  person  to  whom  the  letter  was  addressed  is 
one  for  whom  I  have  entertained  a  great  respect, 
and  I  addressed  him  accordingly,  in  the  following 
manner ; — 

"  REV.   SIR, 

•  "  The  high  rank  you  sustain  in  the  Christian 
world,  involves  a  proportionate  degree  of  responsi- 
bility, and  renders  it  exceedingly  important  that 
the  sentiments  you  publish  should  accord  with  the 
unerring  standard.  Although  we  entertain  dif- 
ferent opinions  of  the  character  of  Christ,  in  this,  I 
presume,  we  are  agreed,  that  no  sentiments  can  be 
of  higher  importance  in  divinity  than  those  which 
represent  his  character  in  a  true  light.  If,  there- 
fore, I  am  in  an  errour  in  my  views  of  Christ,  it  is 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  171 

of  great  Importance  that  I  should  be  convinced. 
And  if  you  are  in  an  errour,  it  is  of  much  greater 
importance  that  you  should  be  convinced,  as  your 
influence  is  more  extensive  tlian  mine.  As  it  res- 
pects us,  individually  considered,  ihe  importance 
may  be  equal  ;  but  as  it  respects  the  publick,  the 
di3j')arity  is  great. 

"  Lately  1  have  re-examined  your  discourses  on 
the  '  Trinity,'  and  '  On  the  testimony  of  Christ 
to  his  own  Divinity.'  I  shall  now  submit  some 
things  to  your  serious  consideration  ;  hoping  that, 
if  I  have  mist.iken  your  views,  you  will  kindly  cor- 
rect my  mistakes  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  if  I 
shall  show  that  your  theory  is  dishonorary  lo  Christ, 
that  you  will  candidly  retract  what  is  erroneous. 
For  I  consider  it  as  a  fact,  that  it  was  not  your  de- 
sign to  c/egmJe  the  character  of  Christ,  and  that 
you  have  too  much  regard  to  his  glory  to  sacrifice 
it  to  your  07vn, 

"  In  your  sermon  on  the  '  Testimony  of  Christ 
lo  his  own  Divinity,'  you  say,  that  '  he  called 
himself  ihe  Son  of  God,''  and  also  called  '  God  his 
Father^'*  and  that  by  each  of  these  he  meant  'to 
a.^sej  t  his  Divinity.'  This  I  esteem  as  correct ; 
for  if  he  was  properly  the  Son  of  God,  he  was  pro- 
peily  a  Divine  Person,  But  in  your  sermon  'on 
the  Trinity,'  have  you  not  given  up  this  testimony 
in  favour  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ?  You  say  that 
'  each  of  the  Divine  Persons  takes  his  peculiar 
name  from  the  peculiar  office  he  sustains  in  the 
economy  of  redemption.  The  first  Person  assumes 
the  name  of  Father,  because  he  is  by  office  the 
Creator,  or  Author  of  all  things,  and  especially  of 
the  human  nature  of  Christ,  The  second  Person 
assumes  the  name  of  Son  and  Word,  by  virtue  of 
his  incarnation  and  mediatorial  conduct.'     Hence 


172  On  the  real  Divxniiy 

you  infer  that  '  there  seems  to  be  no  just  founda- 
tion for  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  generation  of  the 
Son,'  and  to  suppose  that  the  Son,  in  respect  to 
his  Divine  nature^  was  begotten  of  the  Father,  and 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeded  from  the  concur- 
rence of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  is  to  suppose  that 
^  Trinity  of  persons  is  not  founded  in  the  Divine 
nature,  but  merely  in  the  Divine  Will.'  You  add, 
*  This  opinion  sets  the  Son  as  far  below  the  Fa- 
ther as  a  creature  is  below  the  Creator.' 

"  According  to  these  passages  God  is  the  Father 
only  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  and  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  only  is  the  Son  of  God. 

"  We  have  next  to  consider  what  you  mean  by 
the  '  humanity  of  Christ.'  You  say  '  he  asserted 
his  humanity  on  the  just  foundation  of  having  a 
true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul  united  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  soul  and  body  are  united  in  other 
men.'  By  the  '  reasonable  soul'  you  mean  a  hit- 
man soul.  Accordingly  you  add,  '  If  he  had  a 
human  soul  united  with  a  human  body,  then  he  may 
be  as  properly  denominated  a  man  as  any  of  his 
progenitors  whose  names  are  mentioned  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Matthew.' 

"  Thu?,  for  the  human  nature  of  Christ  we  have 
as  proper  a  man  as  Abraham*  Of  this  man  God 
was  the  '  Creator  or  Author'  by  a  miraculous  con- 
ception. On  this  ground  only  is  God  the  Father 
of  Christ.  Of  this  man  God  is  the  Father,  and  this 
man  only  is  the  Son  of  God. 

"  But  you  suppose  that  this  man  was  united  to 
the  second  Person  in  the  Trinity,  which  Person 
was  not  by  nature  the  Son  of  God.  But  how  unit- 
ed ?  You  observe,  ^  It  is  easy  to  say  what  is  not 
meant  by  it.  It  does  not  mean  that  the  human  na- 
ture, was  made  Divine  nature— -"NoVf  on  the  other 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  173 

hand,  that  his  Divine  nature  was  made  human  na- 
ture''^— nor  '  that  his  two  natures  were  mixt  or 
blended  toj^ether.' 

'•  Still  then  we  have  nothing  but  a  mere  man  for 
the  Son  of  God,  For  God  was  the  Father  of  the 
human  nature  only.  The  second  Divine  Person, 
who  was  God^  wis  not  the  Son  of  God ;  nor  was  he 
made  human  nature  or  even  '  mist  or  blended'  with 
the  man  of  which  God  was  the  Father.  Conse- 
quently, the  Son  of  God  was  originally  of  no  higher 
nature'than  David  ;  nor  did  he  become  of  Divine 
nature  by  his  union  with  the  second  Person,  nor 
were  the  two  natures  so  much  as  '  mixt  or  blended 
together.'  As,  on  your  hypothesis,  the  two  natures 
are  God  and  man,  and  as  it  is  the  m,an  only  of 
Avhich  you  suppose  God  to  be  the  Fathe?',  we  can 
have  as  distinct  a  view  of  your  Son  of  God  as  we 
can  oi  Adam  or  David.  And  he  is  a  being  of  pre- 
cisely the  same  nature.  What  then  has  become  of 
Christ's  '  Testimony  to  his  own  Divinity  /'  You 
have  tauiiht  that  he  meant  to  assert  his  Divinity  by 
calling  himself  the  Som  oI  God;  but  could  he  have 
so  meant  with  your  views  of  his  own  Sonship  ?  Did 
he  mean  to  assert  his  Divinity  by  asserting  that 
his  humanity  was  the  Son  of  God?  If  the  Jews 
had  supposed  that  he  meant  that  Gnil  was  his 
Father  in  no  other  sense  than  as  the  '  Creator  or 
Author  of  his  human  nature,'  would  they  have  ac- 
cused him  of  blasp'^^emy  ?  With  all  his  prejudices 
against  Christ.  I  should  not  fear  to  submit  the  ques- 
tion now  before  us  (o  the  Hii2;h  Priest  him-iclf,  who 
abjured  Jesus  bv  the  living  God  to  tell  whether  he 
was  the  Son  of  God, 

"  Lci  us,  sir,  on  your  hypothesis,  state  the  accu- 
sation madr-  to  Pilate,  '  we  have  a  law,  and  by  our 
law  he  ought  to  die,  because  he'  said  that  God  was 
15* 


174  On  the  real  Divinity 

his  Father,  the  *  Creator  or  Author  of  his  human 
nature,'^  Can  you  admit  that  this  was  the  import 
of  the  accusation  ?  \i  not,  we  must  suppose,  that 
he  meant,  and  was  understood  to  mean,  something 
by  his  Sonship  very  different  from  your  explana- 
tion. 

"  Do  not  the  following  things  fairly  result  from 
your  premises  ?  viz. 

"  1.  That  the  Son  of  God,  as  such,  is  a  mere 
creature,  and  by  nature  a  proper  Awman  being, 

"  2.  That  the  Son  of  God,  as  such,  not  only  had 
a  beginning,  but  a  beginning  of  recent  date.  And 
no  longer  ago  than  the  days  of  Herod  ? 

''  3.  That  if  the  Son  of  God  he  out  Mediator,  wa 
have  precisely  a  Socinian  Mediator  ? 

"  4.  That  the  astonishing  love  of  God  in  our  re- 
demption, consists  in  this,  that  he  '  spared  not^  a 
proper  man  miraculously  begotten,  but  freely  de- 
livered him  up  for  us  all.  '  Sparing  not  his  own 
Son"^  is  the  highest  ground  on  which  the  love  of 
God  is  ever  represented.  But  what  is  this  Son,  on 
your  theory,  but  a  mere  man  ?^ 

"  5.  That  the  Son  who  sitteth  on  the  right  hand 
of  the  Majesty  on  high,  whom  alt  the  angels  are 
required  to  worship,  and  to  whom  every  knee  must 
bow,  is,  by  nature,  only  a  man  ? 

''6.  That  the  Son,  whom  the  'Father  showeth 
all  things  which  himself  doeth,'  and  whom  he  hath 
<  ordained  to  be  the  Judge  of  the  living  and  the 
dead,'  is,  by  nature,  of  no  higher  dignity  than  Da- 
vid, or  Solomon  ? 

"  If  the  hypothesis  that  the  Son,  in  respect  to  his 
divine  nature,  was  begotten  of  the  Father,  '  sets  the 
Son  as  far  below  the  Father  as  a  creature  is  below 
the  Creator,'  to  what  depths  has  your  hypothesis 
tunk  the  Son  op  God  !    How  low,  compared  wHh 


etnd  Glory  of  Christ,  175 

Ihe  natural  meaning  of  Bible  language?  'Yet 
having  one  Son^  his  well  beloved,  he  sent  him  last 
of  all,  saying,  They  will  reverence  my  Son,'  'He 
who  spared  not  his  own  Son,'  &;c.  How  different 
from  the  import  of  the  language  used  by  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice  in  o})position  to  the  views  of  Arius, 
'  The  Son  was  peculiarly  of  the  Father,  being  of 
his  substance  as  begotten  of  him.' 

"  1  do  not,  I  cannot,  believe,  that  you  meant  to 
say  any  thing  dishonorary  to  Christ.  But  when 
we  depart  from  the  natural  meaning  of  Scripture 
language  we  fall  into  the  regions  of  conjecture  ;  and 
in  those  regions  we  are  liable  to  be  bewildered^ 
and  to  say  things  which  will  not  bear  examination. 
But  can  you,  my  dear  sir,  be  willing  that  such 
views  of  the  Son  of  God  should  be  handed  down  to 
posterity  sanctioned  and  impressed  by  the  weight 
of  your  character  ?  When  posterity  shall  inquire 
what  the  Lord  Jesus  is,  on  your  theory,  distinct 
from  the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  will  they 
not  find  that  he  is  the  same  as  on  the  Socinian 
theory  ?  as  properly  a  man  as  David,  and  no  more 
than  a  mere  human  being  ? 

"  I  hope,  sir,  you  will  not  consider  me  as  acting 
an  unfriendly  part  in  this  address.  If  1  know  my 
own  heart,  I  write  with  the  feelings  of  cordial 
friendship  and  respect  \  and  with  a  desire  that  truth 
may  be  thoroughly  investigated.  It  has  been  my 
aim  not  to  depart  from  the  golden  rule ;  but  to  do 
as  I  would  that  you  and  others  should  do  unto  me» 
And  notwithstanding  our  diversity  of  sentiment,  I 
can  heartily  subscribe, 

"  Your  affectionate  friend  and  brother, 


176  On  the  real  Divinity 

"  P.  S.  In  your  Sermons  you  represent  that  the 
phrases  '  These  three  are  one,'  '  I  and  my  Father 
are  one,'  mean  '  one  God,  one  Divine  Being.' 
But  will  the  Greek  text  admit  the  word  Gor/ after 
the  word  '  one  P  If  not,  by  what  authority  may 
Ave  add  it  ?  When  Christ  prayed  that  ail  his  fol- 
lowers, with  himself  and  the  Father,  might  be 
0716,  even  as  He  and  the  Father  are  one,  did  he 
pray  that  all  the  redeemed,  wiih  himself  and  ihe 
Father,  might  become  '  one  God,  one  Divine 
Being  ?' 

''  According  to  Mr.  Milner,  the  Council  of  Nice 
resulted  in  opposition  to  the  views  of  Arius, 
*  That  the  Son  was  peculiarly  of  the  Fathor,  being 
of  his  substance  as  begotten  of  him:'  And  with 
this  the  Nicene  Creed  j>erfpcily  harmonizes,  so  far 
as  1  can  understand  the  meaning  of  their  language. 
No  idea  is  suggested  that  the  Father  and  Son  are 
the  same  Being;  but  Beings  of  the  same  nature  as 
Father  and  Son,  But  in  subsequent  Councils  an 
addition  was  made,  by  which  the  Father  and  Son 
were  represented  as  two  distinct  Persons  in  the 
same  Bring.  Still  they  endeavouied  to  maintain 
the  relation  oi  Father  ■a{\(.\  Son  ;  and  considertH  the 
Son  as  ineffably  begotten  of  the  Fiiiher.  When 
we  come  down  to  the  time  of  the  Westminster  As- 
sembly, we  find  that  veneruble  body  ujaintaining 
both  pu'ts  of  what  we  believe  to  be  a  contradic- 
tion. They  not  only  declared  their  belief  ol  the 
doctrine  of  tliree  P(  rsons  in  one  God,  but  they 
stated  also  that  '  It  is  proper  to  the  Father  to  be- 
get the  Son,  and  to  the  Son  lo  be  begotten  ol  the 
Father.'  They  did  not,  therefore,  mean  to  give  up 
the  relation  of  Father  ari(J  Son  by  affirs;  ing  the  doc- 
trine of  three  distinct  Persons  in  one  God. 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  177 

"  Perceiving,  as  you  imagined,  a  contradiction 
in  their  theory,  you  have  boldly  exploded  one 
part  of  the  contradiction  that  you  might  main- 
tain the  other.  Viewing  the  doctrine  of  three  in- 
dependent Persons  in  ©ne  God  as  of  more  impor- 
tance than  the  natural  relation  of  Father  and  Son, 
you  have,  without  much  apparent  reluctance, 
made  a  sacrifice  of  the  natural  relatio,n  of  Father 
and  Son,  that  you  might  consistently  support  the 
doctrine  of  tbee  Persons  in  one  God. 

"  Having  so  high  authority  for  calling  in  ques- 
tion the  correctness  of  the  doctrine  of  three  Per- 
sons in  one  God,  I  ventured  to  look  into  the  subject 
for  myself.  After  inquiry  I  was  led  to  agree  with 
you  in  opinion  thus  far,  viz.  that  the  natural  rela- 
tion of  Father  and  Son  between  God  and  Jesut 
Christ  is  inconsistent  with  the  hypothesis  of  three 
independent  Persons  in  one  Being.  But  instead 
of  exactly  following  your  example,  I  gave  up  the 
hypothes  is  of  three  independent  Persons  in  07ie  Being, 
that  I  might  consistently  support  the  relation  of 
Father  and  Son, 

"  The  true  state  of  the  case  appears  to  be  this,^ 
— We  have  both  departed  from  the  former  Trini- 
tarian doctrine,  on  the  supposition  that  it  implied 
a  plain  contradiction.  You  have  chosen  to  defend 
one  part  of  the  contradiction,  and  I  the  other.  By 
thus  departing  from  the  theory  of  those  who  went 
before  us,  one  of  us  has  probably  approached 
nearer  to  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel,  and  the  other 
departed  to  a  greater  distance.  Being  equally 
sensible  of  an  inconsistency  in  the  opinions  of  our 
fathers,  and  having  taken  opposite  sides  of  their 
supposed  contradiction,  it  would  perhaps  be  pro- 
per, that  we  should  carefully  examine  the  opposite 
hypotheses  by  comparing  each  with  the  scriptures. 


178  On  the  real  Divinity 

to  see  which  harmonizes  best  with  the  most  obvious 
meaning  of  the  gos[)eI. 

"  If  the  gospol  plainly  teaches  that  God  is  three 
Persons^  and  that  Jesus  Christ  is  one  of  those  Per- 
sons, then  my  hypothesis  of  proper  Father  and  Son 
is  uaquestionably  erroneous.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  gospel  clearly  represents  the  natural  re- 
lation of  Father  and  Son  between  God  and  Jesus 
Chr>st,  then  your  hypothesis  of  three  persons  in 
one  God  is  obviously  erroneous.  These  things 
are  slated  on  the  supposition  that  we  are  correct  in 
the  opinion  that  these  two  hypotheses  are  incon- 
sistent with  each  other. 

"  Let,  then,  a  nrian  of  integrity  and  discernment, 
who  has  never  heard  any  thing  of  the  disj)utes 
about  the  character  of  Christ,  nor  seen  our  New 
Testament,  take  that  precious  book,  and  read  it 
through  with  care  and  impartiality  ;  which  hypo- 
thesis w^ould  he  most  naturally  discover,  yours  or 
mine?  In  what  sermon  or  discourse  of  Christ  or 
his  apostles  would  he  find  God  represented  as  three 
Persons  ?  But  how  often  would  he  find  God  repre- 
sented as  the  Father  of  Christ,  and  Christ  as  the 
Son  of  God?  On  what  ground  would  he  find  Di- 
vine love  rejH-esented  in  our  redemption  ?  Where 
would  he  find  it  represented  on  lliis  ground,  that 
God  is  three  Persons,  and  that  one  ol  those  Per- 
sons became  imited  to  a  man?  But  would  he  find 
any  difficulty  in  discovering  thai  '  God  so  loved  the 
world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son  to  be  a 
propitiation  for  our  sins  V  What  would  he  think 
on  finding,  that  Christ  so  commonly,  in  speaking 
of  God,  used  this  familiar  language — "^  my  Father?'' 
What  would  he  suppose  Christ  meant  by  speaking 
so  much  of  his  Father's  sending  him,  loving  him, 
teaching  him,  commanding  him,  committing  all  judg- 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  179 

ment  to  him,  delivering'  all  lhing<^  into  his  hand, 
giving  him  e^W  power  in  heaven  and  earth?  And 
of  his  coming  not  to  do  his  own  will ;  coming  from 
God  nnd  going  to  God?  Would  the  impirtialin- 
quifor  suppose  by  any  of  these,  or  any  other  of 
Christ's  representations,  that  God  was  three  Per- 
sons, and  that  the  Son  was  one  of  the  three  ? 
Would  he  not,  in  fact,  find,  that  God  had  spoken 
of  Christ,  and  conducted  towards  him  as  we  should 
naturally  expect  he  would  do,  if  Christ  were  his 
own  Son?  Would  he  not  also  find,  that  Christ  has 
spoken  of  God,  and  conducted  towards  God,  as 
we  might  reasonably  expect  he  would  do,  if  God 
were  his  own  Father?  If  the  impartial  reader 
would  find  no  declaration  in  the  Bible  expressing 
the  doctrine  that  God  is  three  di>ti/ict  Persons  ; 
but  should  find  the  gospel  full  of  representations 
agreeing  with  the  hypothesis  of  the  natural  rela- 
tion of  Father  and  Son^  between  God  and  Jesus 
Christ;  which  part  of  the  contradiction  would  he 
adopt,  yours  or  rnine  .^" 

In  writing,  sir,  to  our  bi'other,  it  was  my  aim  to 
make  an  honest  comparison  of  the  things  he  had 
published.  Yet  I  believed  it  to  be  possible  that 
I  might  misapprehend  his  meaning,  and,  of  course, 
make  incorrect  deductions.  On  this  account  I  re- 
quested that  he  would  kindly  correct  my  mistakes, 
if,  in  any  thing,  I  had  misapprehended  his  meaning. 
Whether  he  thought  it  would  be  too  great  conde- 
scension in  HIM  to  correct  my  mistakes,  or  whether 
he  was  aware  that  he  could  not  mend  the  matter  by 
any  exjilanation  which  he  could  give,  you  must 
determine  for  yourself.  It  i?,  however,  possible 
that  he  might  have  good  reasons  for  not  replying, 
which  have  not  come  to  my  knowledge. 


180  On  the  real  Divinity 

This  writer  seems  to  have  been  aware,  that,  in 
his  explanations  of  the  Trinity  and  of  ihe  Sons  hip 
of  Christ,  he  bad  departed  from  the  faith  of  former 
Trinitarians.  Thus  he  writes — *'  Many  have  sup- 
posed that  the  Son^  the  second  person  in  the 
Trinity,  is,  in  some  mysterious  manner,  begotten  of 
the  Father.^^ 

This  "  many'^^  included  not  only  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly  of  Divines,  with  all  their  adherents, 
but  the  Council  of  Nice  and  a  multitude  which  no 
man  can  number.  It  is  true  indeed  that  the 
Council  office  did  not  suppose  God  to  be  three 
persons ;  but  they  supposed  Christ  to  be  "  by  na- 
ture the  Son  of  God  ;^'' — "  of  the  substance  of  the 
Father  as  begotten  of  him."  But  this  opinion  our 
good  brother  has  censured  as  setting  "  the  Son  as 
far  below  the  Father  as  a  creature  is  below  the 
Creator.^'*  If  this  censure  be  just,  it  falls  with  all 
its  weight  on  your  hypothesis  ;  and  the  great  body 
of  Trinitarians  of  past  ages  are  represented  as 
entertaining  a  belief  which  "  sets  the  Son  as  far 
below  the  Father  as  a  creature  is  below  the  Crea- 
tor." 

Calvin  you  will  admit  as  an  orthodox  Trinita- 
rian. Let  us  attend  for  a  moment  to  his  testi- 
mony. 

'•  We  indeed  do  confess  that  the  Mediator  who 
was  born  of  the  Virgin  is  properly  the  Son  of  God. 
For  Christ,  in  that  he  is  man,  could  not  be  the  mir- 
ror of  the  inestimable  favour  of  God,  unless  this 
dignity  were  given  him  to  be,  and  to  be  called, 
the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.  But  in  the  mean 
while  the  definition  of  the  church  standeth  firmly 
established  that  he  is  counted  the  Son  of  God,  be- 
cause he  being  the  Word  begotten  of  the  Father 
before  all  worlds,  did,  by  hypostatical  union,  take 


and  Glory  of  Christ.  181 

upon   him    the  nature    of  man," — Calvin's  Insti. 
p.  223. 

''  Servetus,  and  other  such  frantick  men  would 
have  it,  that  Christ  who  appeared  in  the  flesh  is  the 
Son  of  God,  because  out  of  the  flesh  he  could  not 
be  called  by  that  name." — "  We  grant  indeed  that 
Christ  is,  in  the  flesh  of  man,  called  the  Son,  but 
not  as  the  faithful  are,  that  is,  by  adoption  and 
grace  ;  but  the  true,  and  natural,  and  therefore,  the 
only  Son,  that  by  this  mark  he  may  be  discerned 
from  all  others.  For  God  vouchsafeth  to  give  the 
name  of  his  sons  to  us  who  are  regenerate  into  a 
new  life  ;  but  the  name  of  the  true  and  only  begot- 
ten Son  he  giveih  to  Christ  only.  How  can  he  be 
the  only  Son  among  so  many  brethren,  but  because 
he  possesseth  that  by  nature  which  we  possess  by 
gi//?"— p.  224. 

"  According  to  the  common  use  of  the  Hebrew 
tongue  he  is  called  the  Son  of  man,  because  he  is 
of  the  offspring  oiAdam*  By  the  contrary  I  affirm, 
that  he  is  called  the  Son  of  God  in  respect  to  the 
Godhead  and  eternal  essence  ;  because  it  is  no  less 
proper  that  it  be  referred  to  the  nature  of  God  that 
he  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  than  to  the  nature  of 
man  that  he  is  called  the  Son  of  man.''^ — p.  225. 

Thus  you  may  see  that  the  orthodoxy  of  Calvin 
did  not  secure  him  from  the  censure  of  holding  an 
opinion  which  ''s.*ts  the  Son  ris  far  below  the  Fa- 
ther as  a  creature  is  below  the  Creator." 

I  am  aware  that  passages  might  be  quoted  from 
Calvin  which  could  not  easily  be  reconciled  to 
those  which  have  been  now  exhibited.  But  Calvin 
is  not  the  only  Trinitarian  who  has  advanced,  and 
attempted  to  support,  contradictory  hypotheses. 

Since  the  publication  of  my  letters  to  you,  much 
pains  have  been  taken  to  circulate   the  idea  that 
16 


'■^^2  On  the  real  Divinity 

my  views  of  the  Son  of  God  do  not  distinguish  him 
from  a  created  being.  But  the  censure  quoted 
from  our  brother  was  published  long  before  my  let- 
ters to  you  ;  and  it  was  your  hypothesis  and  not 
mincf  that  he  meant  to  condemn.  Is  it  not,  then, 
time  for  you  to  inquire  on  what  ground  you  can  de- 
fend yourself  from  the  chnrge  of  holding  an  opi- 
nion which  "sets  the  Son  as  far  below  the  Father 
as  a  creature  is  below  the  Creator  ?" 

Mr.  Brown,  who  was  with  you  in  sentiment, 
in  his  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  under  (he  word 
"  Christ,'^''  has  passed  as  severe  a  censure  on  the 
hypothesis  of  our  brother  as  he  has  on  yours.  He 
says  "To  pretend  that  Christ  is  called  the  only 
begotten  Son  of  God,  because  God  sent  him  as  our 
Mediator,  or  because  of  his  miraculous  conception 
by  the  Virgin,  is  not  only  groundless  and  absurd  but 
even  blasphemous ."^^ 

Thus  Trinitarian  writers  contradict  and  condemn 
one  another;  and  if  Trinitarians  are  the  only  good 
people,  "  who  then  can  be  saved  ?" 

P.  S.  The  great  diversity  which  has  firevailed  in 
the  Christian  world  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity, 
may  be  in  some  degree  understood  irom  the  follow- 
ing extracts  from  a  note  in  BenMordtcaPs  Letters, 
Vol.  1.  page  153,  annexed  to  this  sentence:  "the 
Christians  have  never  agreed  ujDon  the  sense  of  the 
propositions  they  disputed  about." 

Cyril  and  Alhanasius  define  a  person  to  be 
"  Essentia  cum  suis  quibusdam  proprietaiibus,  ab 
lis  quae  sunt  ejusdem  speciei  numero  differens." 
Cudworth,  p.  603. 

Dr.  Water  land  allows  Person  and  Intelligent 
Being  to  be  the  same.  p.  350.  Reply  to  Dr. 
Waterland's  Defence,  352, 


and  Glory  of  Christ.  183 

Mr,  Locke  defines  person  to  bo  a  thinking,  intel- 
ligent being,  that  has  reason  and  reflection,  and  can 
consider  itself  as  itself.  [Doddridge  says,  "'the 
word  person  commonly  sij^nifies  one  single,  intelli- 
gent, voluntary  agent,  or  conscious  being;  and 
this  we  choose  to  call  ihe  philosophical  sense  of  the 
word  :  but  in  a  political  sense  it  may  express  the 
different  relations  supported  by  the  same  philo- 
sophical person;  v.  q.  the  same  man  may  be  fa- 
ther, husband,"  &c.  and  afterwards  says,  "  If  it 
be  inquired  in  what  sense  the  word  person  is  used 
in  the  proposition,  (respecting  tiie  three  Perions 
in  the  Godhead,)  we  answer,  it  must  at  least  be 
true  in  apolitical  sense,  yet  cannot  amount  to  so 
much  as  Q philosophical  personality,  unless  we  allow 
a  plurality  of  Gods." — So  that  Doddridge  was  only 
a  modal  Trinitarian.] 

The  Greek  fathers  said  there  were  three  Hypos- 
tases ;  which  the  La/ms- rejected  as  signifying  three 
geneiical  substances^  and  accused  the  Greeks  of 
Arianisn).  The  Latins  used  the  word  person  (per- 
sona); the  Greeks  rejected  that  as  signifying  no 
rea/,  but  only  a  modal  distinction,  and  accused  the 
Latins  of  Sabeliianism.  Athanasius  summoned  a 
council  upon  it  to  quiet  the  division  ;  and  it  was 
found  they  were  both  of  the  same  opinion,  and  only 
differed  about  words  ;  upon  which  the  Synod  de- 
creed, than  thenceforth  the  Greek  hypostasis  and 
the  Latin  persona  should  be  taken  in  the  same 
sense,  to  mean  particular  substance.  But  the  school- 
men have  confounded  the  subject  more  than  ever, 
by  explaining  hypostasis  to  signify  a  person  distin- 
guished from  the  substance  j  in  which  sense  it  is 
used  by  the  Romish  church,  but  was  never  used 
before,  and  is  utterly  unintelligible. 


184  On  the  real   Divinity 

Mr.  B,  Bennet,  in  his  Irenicum,  p.  81,  tells  us, 
the  Avgustan  Confession  uses  the  woid  person^  not 
for  a  part  or  quality,  but  for  that  which  properly 
subsists. 

The  Wirtemberg  Confession  says,  *'  tres  pro- 
prictates  per  se  subsistentes  ;"  but  whether  the 
disiinction  of  persons  be  real  or  modal,  is  a  ques- 
tion. 

A  learned  controvertist  says,  the  distinction  is 
something  less  than  modal,  and  greater  than  real* 

Dr,  South  makes  the  Persons  to  be  internal  rela- 
tions of  the  one  substance  of  the  Deity  to  itself. 

Dr,  ?ffl//i5  makes  them  ea^/erric/ relations  of  the 
one  substance  of  the  Deity  to  mankind, 

Zanchy  says,  a  Person  is  nothing  but  the  Divine 
essence,  distinguished,  and  as  it  were  individuated 
by  a  certain  personal  property. 

Junius  thinks,  the  Persons  are  distinguished  from 
the  essence  in  notion  only  ;  ratione  tantum  ;  ah  in^ 
vicem  reali  distinctione  :  but  really  distinguished. 

Lud,  Capellus  says,  non  re,  sed  ratione. 

Mr,  Baxter  says,  he  is  past  doubt,  there  is  in 
God  a  trinity  of  essential,  formal,  inadequate  con- 
ceptions or  primalities ;  viz.  vita!,  active  power, 
intellect,  and  will.  Baxter's  Works,  vol.  II.  p. 
132. 

Dr.  Doddridge  gives  the  following  : — Mr,  Howe 
seems  to  suppose  that  there  are  three  distinct,  eter- 
nal spirits,  or  distinct,  intelligent  hypostases ; 
which,  on  account  of  their  consent,  affection,  and 
mutual  self-conseiousness,  may  be  called  the  one 
God. 

Dr,  Waterland,  Abraham  Taylor,  with  the  rest 
of  the  Athanasians,  assert  three /?rojoer  distinct  per- 
sons, entirely  equal  to  and  independent  on  each  other ^ 
yet  making  up  one  and  the  same  Being. 


and  Glory  of  Christ.  18o 

B/7.  Pearson,  with  whom  Bp,  Bull  and  Dr»  Owen 
also  agree,  is  of  opinion,  that  though  the  Father 
is  i\\e  fountain  of  the  Deity,  the  whole  Divine  nature 
is  communicated  from  the  Father  to  the  Son,  and 
from  both  to  the  Spirit ;  yet  so  as  that  the  Father 
and  Son  are  not  separate,  nor  separable  from  the 
Divinity,  but  do  still  exist  in  it,  and  are  most  inti- 
mately united  to  it. 

Dr.  Watts  maintained  one  supreme  God  dwell" 
ing  in  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  which  he  sup- 
poses to  have  existed  the  first  of  ail  creatures  ;  and 
speaks  of  the  Divine  Lo^o^,  as  the  wisdom  of  God, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  divine  power,  or  the  in- 
fluence and  effect  of  it ;  which  he  says  is  a  scrips 
tural person  ;  i.  e.  spoken  o(  figurative ly  in  Scrip- 
ture, under  personal  characters. 

Others,  to  avoid  the  inconvenience  of  defining, 
say  in  general,  that  there  are 

Three  Differe-ces ;  as  Dr.  Tillotson  : 

Three  Diversities  ;  as  Bp»  Burnet : 

Three  Somewhats  ;  as  Dr,  Wallis  : 

Three  Subsistences  ;  as  Archbishop  Seeker, 

St,  Augustine  being  asked  what  the  three  are, 
gays,  Human  learning  is  scanty,  and  affords  not 
terms  to  express  it  ;  'tis  therefore  answered,  "  three 
persons,  not  as  if  that  was  to  the  purpose,  but 
somewhat  must  be  said,  and  we  must  nut  be  silent." 
Aug.  de  Trin.  1.  5.  c.  9. 

The  word  OfMHTiog,  or  consubstantial,  was  no  more 
determinate  than  the  word  Person.  It  was  reject- 
ed by  the  eighty  fathers  who  condemned  Paulus 
Samosatenus,  as  Sabelhaa  ;  and  within  fifty  years 
was  made  he  test  of  orthodoxy.  1 ,  It  was  understood 
by  the  Aihanasians  to  signify  the  same  kind  of 
substance  as  are  the  tnii»k  and  ihf  branches  and 
leaves  of  a  tree  ;  or  the  sun,  its  light,  and  derivative 
16* 


186  On  the  real  Divinity 

light;  yet  so  existing,  as  that  the  second  and  third 
should  depend  on  its  original;  as  the  light  upon 
the  sun.  2.  By  Gregory  Xyss en.  Cyril,  &c.  it  was 
understood  to  mean  the  name  kind  of  substance 
existing  independently  ;  as  three  men.  3.  By  the 
Montanists,  it  was  understood  that  the  Son  and 
Spirit  existed  as  parts  of  the  Divine  substance.  4, 
By  the  Sabellinns,  as  one  and  the  same  identical 
whole  substnnce.  5.  By  Ew5p6w^,  merely  that  the 
Son  was  not  of  the  substance  of  the  creatures  ;  divid- 
ing all  substance  mlo  created  and  divine.  6.  By  the 
Lateran  Council,  in  a  sense,  if  intelligible,  very 
little,  if  at  all,  different  from  the  Sabellians,  and  the 
ancient  opinion  of  Samosatenus. 

Nature  is  another  technical  term,  much  u§ed  in 
the  dispute  between  the  Eutychians  and  Nestoriaifis  ; 
and  the  meaning  of  it  is  as  uncertain.  De  Rodon,  a 
learned  Frenchman,  says,  it  is  taken  in  nine  senses  ; 
and  iMr.  Richard  Baxter  says,  "  the  sense  was  not 
agreed  on  before  they  disputed  the  matter."  Ch. 
His.  p.  98. 

"  Though  the  J\''estoria7is  still  go  for  desperate 
hereticks,  1  verily  believe,  says  Mr.  Baxter,  that 
all  the  quarrel  was  about  ambiguous  words." 

Jsfestorius  believed  the  Divine  and  human  nature 
of  Christ  were  united,  non  hypostasi,  sed  habitu- 
dine. 

Eutyches  was  condemned  for  affirming,  that  Christ 
had  but  one  nature,  after  the  two  natures  were 
unitrd. 

DiGscurns  said,  that  Christ  is  o/two  natures,  but 
not  that  he  is  or  has  Uvo  natures.  The  Euty- 
chians said,  he  was  ex  diiahus  naturis ;  others,  in 
duabns  naturis  :  and  Cyril  reproves  J\''esforius  for 
assorting  only  an  union  secundum  personam,  and 
not  secundum  naturam  ;  and  one    of  Quiniianus^s 


and  Glory  of  Christ.  187 

anathemas  wavS,  IfaDy  say,  God  Man,  and  not  God 
and  Man,  lei  hitn  be  accursed.  Baxter's  Ch.  Hist. 
120,  &c.  &c. 

There  is  much  more  in  the  note  from  which  this 
is  extracted,  on  the  other  questions  to  which  this 
subject  gave  rise  ;  and  however  difficult  it  may 
seem  to  have  been  orthodox  in  the  days  of  the 
Nestorians,  it  would  appear  by  the  fnliowirig  ex- 
tract from  the  pious  ^nd  orthodox  Bishop  Beve- 
ridge,  that  the  difficulty  is  in  no  degree  diminished' 
in  our  days. 

"  We  are  now  to  consider  the  order  of  those 
persons  in  the  Trinity  described  in  the  words  be- 
fore us,  Matt,  ^xxviii.  J  9.  First,  the  Father,  and 
then  the  Son,  and  then  the  Holy  Ghost ;  everyone 
of  which  is  really  and  truly  God  ;  and  yet  they  are 
all  but  one  real  and  true  God.  A  mystery,  which 
we  are  all  bound  to  believe,  but  yet  must  have  a 
great  care  how  we  speak  of  it,  it  bting  both  easy 
and  dangerous  to  mistake  in  expressing  so  myste- 
riotis  a  truth  as  this  is.  If  we  t^tnkoi  it,  how  hard 
is  it  to  imagine  one  numerically  Divine  nature  in 
more  than  one  and  the  same  Divine  person  F  Or, 
thr'  e  Divine  persons  in  no  mtwe  than  one  and  the 
same  Divine  nature?  If  we  speak  of  it,  how  hard 
is  it  to  find  out  words  to  exprr>s  it?  If  I  sav,  the 
Father,  Son,  anrl  Holy  Ghost  be  three,  and  every- 
one di-tinrtly  God,  it  is  true;  but  if  I  say  they  be 
three,  and  every  one  a  distinct  God,  it  is  false.  I 
may  say,  the  Divine  persons  are  distinct  in  the 
Divine  nature  ;  but  I  canr.ut  sav,  that  the  D  vine 
nature  is  divid<  d  into  the  Divine  personri,  I  may 
say,  God  the  Father  is  one  God,  and  the  Son  is  one 
Go  I,  an»l  the  Holy  Giiosi  [<^  one  God.  but  I  cannot 
say.  that  the  Father  is  on*'  God,  and  the  Son  another 
God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  a  third  God.     I  may  say, 


188  On  the  real  Divinity 

the  Father  begat  another  who  is  God;  yet  I  cannot 
say  that  he  begat  another  God.  And  from  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son  proceedeth  another  who  is  God  ; 
yet  I  cannot  say,  from  the  Father  and  the  Son  pro- 
ceedeth  another  God.  For  all  this  while,  though 
their  nature  be  the  same,  their  persons  are  distinct ; 
and  though  their  persons  be  distinct,  yet  still  their 
nature  is  the  same.  So  that,  though  the  Father  be 
the  first  person  in  the  Godhead,  the  Son  the  second, 
the  Holy  Ghost  the  third ;  yet  the  Father  is  not 
the  first,  the  Son  a  second,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  a 
third  God.  So  hard  a  thing  is  it  to  word  so  great 
a  mystery  aright ;  or  to  fit  so  high  a  truth  with  ex- 
pressions suitable  and  proper  to  it,  without  going 
one  way  or  another  from  it."  Bishop  Beveridge^s 
Private  'Ihoughls,  part  ii.  p.  48,  49. 

The  same  Bishop  adds  a  few  pajjes  farther  on — 
"This  is  the  principal,  if  not  the  only  characteris- 
tical  note  whereby  to  distinguish  a  Christian  from 
another  man  ;  yea,  from  a  Turk ;  for  this  is  the 
chief  thing  that  the  Turks  both  in  their  Koran  and 
other  writings  upbraid  Christians  for,  even  because 
they  believe  a  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Divine  na- 
ture. For  which  cause  they  frequently  say,  they 
are  people  that  believe  God  hath  companions^  so 
that,  take  away  this  article  of  our  Christian  taith, 
and  what  depends  upon  it,  and  there  would  be  but 
little  difference  between  a  Christian  and  a  Turk." 

How  different  the  language  of  the  admirable  Je- 
remy Taylor  !  ''  He  that  goes  about  to  speak  of 
and  to  understand  the  mysterious  Trinity,  and  does 
it  by  words  and  names  of  man's  invention,  or  by 
such  which  signify  cotitingently,  if  he  rrckon  this 
mystery  by  the  mythology  of  numbers,  by  the  ca- 
bala of  letters,  bv  the  distinctions  of  the  school, 
and  by  the  weak  inventions  of  disputing  people ;  if 


and  Glory  of  Christ,  189 

he  only  talks  of  essences  and  existences,  hyposta- 
ses and  personalities,  distinctions  without  differ- 
ence, and  priority  in  co-equalities,  and  unity  in 
pluralities,  and  of  superior  predicates  ot  no  larger 
extent  than  the  inferior  subjects,  he  may  aojuse 
himself,  and  find  his  understanding  will  be  like 
St.  Peter's  upon  the  mount  of  Tabor  at  the  trans- 
figuration :  he  may  build  three  tabernacles  in  his 
head,  and  talk  something  he  knows  not  what. — 
But  the  good  man  that  feels  the  power  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  he  to  whom  the  Son  is  become  wisdom, 
righteousness,  sanctification  and  redemption,  he  in 
whose  heart  the  love  of  the  Spirit  of  God  is  spread 
abroad,  to  whom  God  hath  communicated  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  Comforter;  this  man,  though  he  under- 
stands nothing  of  that  which  is  unintelligible,  yet 
he  only  understands  the  mysteriousness  of  the  Holy 
Trinity."    Taylor's  Suppl,  Sermons,  p.  91. 


PAET  III 


ON   THE   CHARACTER    OF    THE   HOLY 
SPIRIT. 


LETTER  h 

By  the  Holy  Spirit  is  intfnded  the  same  as  the  ful- 
ness of  God, 

REV.   SIR, 

Having  stated  to  you  my  vievvs  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  the  character  of  the  Holy  Sfirit  v\ill 
now  be  considered.  On  this  point  the  oracles  of 
God  are  our  only  guide;  and  [o  their  dictates  it 
behooves  us  to  submit  with  reverence. 

You  will  not  consider  me  insensible  of  my  ac- 
countability to  God  in  regard  to  my  writings  :  nor 
can  you  reasonably  view  me  as  having  any  interest 
to  promote,  aside  from  the  promotion  of  truth. 

If  your  views  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  according  to 
truth,  certainly  there  can  be  nothing  for  me  to  gain 
by  advancing  and  advocating  a  different  hypothe- 
sis :  unless  it  may  be  for  my  advantage  to  expose 
iHyself  to  censure  and  reproach. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  my  views  are  according  to 
truth,  it  is  as  important  for  you,  as  it  is  for  me,  to 
understand  and  admit  them. 


On  the.  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit.       191 

Your  having  so  great  a  majority  of  the  Christian 
ivorld  on  your  side,  is  not  sufficient  to  secure  to 
you  the  approbation  of  God.  Be  entreated  to 
keep  these  things  in  mind,  while  you  read  and  re- 
fit vt  on  the  important  subject  now  belore  us. 

From  what  you  have  ah-eady  seen  on  tlie  charac- 
ter of  God  and  his  Son,  you  have  doubtless  con- 
cluded, that  in  my  view  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  a 
self-existent  Person.  You  will  now  see,  that  in 
my  view  the  Holy  Spirit  is  compreheniled  in  the 
self-existence  of  Jehovah,  but  without  distinct  per- 
sonality.  The  terms  Holy  Spirit,  or  H()l\  Gnost, 
as  used  in  Scripture,  do  not  appear  to  nie  intended 
to  express  another  Person  besides  the  Father  and 
the  Son  ;  yet,  to  my  understanding,  these  terms 
convey  an  idea  of  that  which  is  of  no  less  estima- 
tion. It  is  that  in  God,  by  which  he  is  able  to  do 
good  and  communicate,  either  immediately,  or 
through  the  instrumentaliiy  of  other  agents. 

By  the  Holy  Spirit,  radically  considered,  the 
same  is  understood  as  by  the  phras^e,  ihe  fulness  of 
God.  Yet  the  ternis  Holy  Spirit,  are,  ii  is  thf)ught, 
most  commonly  applied  to  ihe  productive,  efficient 
emanations  of  Divine  fulness. 

The  following  phrases  appear  to  be  perfectly 
synonymous — The  Holy  Ghost — the  Holy  Spirit-^ 
the  Spirit  of  Gid — the  Spirit  vf  the  Lord — the  Spi- 
rit of  t fie  Lord  God — the  Spirit  of  the  Father.  That 
these  are  synonymous,  will  probably  not  he  denied 
by  any  person  well  acquainted  with  the  Scrip- 
tures. And  should  any  one  be  disposed  to  deny 
it,  the  idea  may  be  fairly  established  by  comparing 
Scripture  with  Scripture. 

My  ideas  of  the  Spirit  m,ay  be  better  understood 
by  a  little  attention  to  some  Scripture  metaphors. 
— God  is  represented  by  the  metaphor  of  the  natu- 


192        On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

ral  Sun.  "  The  Lord  God  is  a  Sun."  Then  the 
rays  ol"  light  and  heat,  which  emanate  or  proceed 
from  the  sun,  are  an  emblem  ot  the  "-Holy  Spirit 
which proceedeth  from  the  Father,^^  Like  the  rays 
of  the  sun,  these  Divine  emanations  of  the  lulness 
of  God,  illuminate,  quicken,  invigorate,   and  fruc' 

tify* 

God  is  also  represented  as  a  Fountain  of  living 
waters.  If  we  consider  the  Fountain  as  in  the 
earth,  then  the  effusions  or  streams  which  pro- 
ceed from  the  Fountain  may  represent  the  Holy 
Spirit,  But  if  we  consider  the  Fountain  as  a  foun- 
tain of  vapour  in  the  air,  then  the  showers  of  rain 
or  dew  will  properly  represent  the  emanations  of 
Divine  fulness. 

By  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  Spirit  of  God,  is  not, 
in  my  view,  intended  any  one  attribute  merely,  but 
all  those  attributes  which  are  implied  in  the  ful- 

NESjS  or  ALL-SUFFICIENCY  of  God. 

Before  an  attempt  to  explain  those  texts  of  Scrip- 
ture which  have  been  supposed  to  import  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  is  a  distinct  Person  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  it  may  be  well  to  exhibit  a  part  of  the 
considerations  which  have  had  influence  on  my 
mind  in  favour  of  giving  up  that  opinion. 

1.  It  has  appeared  to  me  inconsistent  to  sup- 
pose that  the  Spirit,  should  be  both  a  self  existent 
Person  and  the  Spirit  of  a  Person ;  yet  the  Spirit 
is  spoken  of  as  the  Spirit  of  a  Person  twenty  times 
to  its  being  once  spoken  of  as  though  it  were  a 
distinct  Person.  There  are  indeed  several  in- 
stances in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  personified  or 
spoken  of  as  it  would  be  natural  to  speak  of  a 
Person;  but  the  number  of  these  instances  is 
much  less  than  was  expected  previous  to  inquiry. 
And  it  is  observable  that  the  spirit  or  soul  of  man 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,         193 

is  also  personified  in  the  Bible,  and  spoken  of  as 
though  it  were  something  distinct  from  the  man; 
or  as  though  the  man  and  his  spirit  were  two' per- 
sojis.  Instances  of  this  are  perhaps  nearly  as  nu- 
merous as  the  instances  in  which  the  Spirit  of  God 
is  personified.  But  it  ought  to  be  distinctly  noted, 
that  when  we  have  become  habituated  to  the  sen- 
timent that  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  intended  a  Per- 
son, the  idea  of  a  Person  will  immediately  arise  in 
our  minds,  upon  hearing  or  seeing  the  words  Holy 
Spirit  or  Holy  Ghost,  So  if  we  had  been  taught 
from  our  infancy  that  the  natural  sun  is  a  person, 
then  we  should  think  of  it  as  such  whenever  it 
should  come  into  view.  This  may  account  for  its 
having  been  supposed  that  there  is  much  in  the 
Scriptures  in  favour  of  the  distinct  personality  of 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

In  general,  throughout  the  Bible,  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  spoken  of  as  the  spirit  of  a  person,  just  as  we 
speak  of  the  spirit  of  man  as  the  spirit  of  a  person  ; 
and  in  the  same  manner  as  the  sacred  writers  speak 
of  the  attributes  of  God  ;  not  as  distinct  Persons,  but 
as  something  of  a  Person,  or  in  a  Person,  or  be- 
longing to  a  Person.  The  inspired  writers  speak 
of  the  Spirit  of  Man,  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord,  the  Wisdom  of  God,  the  Power  of  God, 
the  Goodness  of  God,  and  the  Will  of  God. 

We  may  also  observe,  that  when  God  speaks  of 
the  Spirit,  he  says,  "  my  Spirit,"  just  as  he  says, 
**m?/  Power,"  *' mi/  Goodness,"  <£c.  These  and 
similar  forms  of  speech,  respecting  the  Holy  Spirit, 
are  very  numerous  in  the  Bible,  and  they  naturally 
convey  the  idea  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  not  a  dis- 
tinct Person,  but  the  Spirit  of  a  Person ;  as  natu- 
rally as  the  forms  of  speech,  respecting  Wisdom, 
Power,  and  Goodness,  convey  the  idea  that  they 
17 


1 94         On  the  Character  of  the  itoly  Spirit, 

are  attributes  of  a  Person,  and  not  so  many  distinct 
Persons. 

If  it  were  admitted,  that  the  term  God  means 
three  self-existent  Persons,  even  on  that  supposition 
the  phrase,  the  Spirit  of  God,  would  not  imply 
that  the  Spirit  is  one  of  those  Persons,  but  it  would 
be  the  Spirit  of  three  Persons. 

If  the  Holy  Spirit  be  a  self-existent  Person  dis- 
tinct from  the  Father,  it  is  doubtless  an  important 
truth,  and  one  which  we  should  not  expect  would 
have  been  unrevealed  until  the  taking  place  of  the 
gospel  dispensation.  Yet  may  it  not  be  said  with 
safety,  that  there  is  no  more  evidence  in  the  Old 
Testament  of  the  distinct  personality  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  than  there  is  of  the  distinct  personality  of 
the  Power  of  God,  or  the  Knowledge  ot  God,  or 
the  Goodness  of  God?  For,  as  before  observed, 
the  Spirit  is  uniformly  spoken  of  as  something  6e- 
longing  to  God,  and  not  as  a  distinct  Person. 

The  phrases  "  the  Spirit  of  God,"  "  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord,"  "  my  Spirit,"  "  thy  Spirit,"  '♦  his  Spir- 
it," are  the  usual  phrases  by  which  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  represented  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  terms, 
"  the  Holy  Ghost,"  are  not,  I  think,  to  be  fond  in 
it.  The  terms,  Holy  Spirit,  are  found  three  times  ; 
and  in  each  of  those  instances  it  is  spoken  of  as 
the  spirit  of  a  person,  and  not  as  being  a  self-ex- 
istent Person.  ^'  Take  not  thy  Holy  Spirit  from 
me."  "  And  vexed  his  Holy  Spirit" — •''  And  put 
his  Holy  Spirit  within  him."  Unless,  then,  the 
saints  under  the  Old  Testament  had  some  evidence 
which  has  not  come  to  us,  was  it  possible  that  they 
should  believe  that  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  or  the 
Holy  Spirit,  was  intended  an  independent  Person 
co-eternal  with  the  Father  ? 

The  manner  of  representing  the  Holy  Spirit  in 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,         195 

the  Old  Testament  is  common  in  the  New. — We 
often  read,  in  the  New  Testament,  of  the  ''  Spirit 
of  God,"  the  "  Spirit  of  the  Lord  ;"  we  also  read 
of  the  "  Spirit  of  the  Father,"  and  "his  Holy  Spir- 
it." 

Some  writers,  if  I  have  not  misunderstood  them 
have  been  disposed  to  make  a  disiinction  between 
what  they  call"  the  personal  Spirit,""and  the  Spi- 
rit of  God  or  the  emanations  of  Divine  fulness; 
l3utl  have  not  been  able  to  find  any  ground  for 
this  disiinction.  That  which  is  called  the  Spirit 
of  God,  or  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  in  one  place, 
is  called  the  Holy  Ghost  in  another.  In  the  pro- 
phecy of  Isaiah,  we  have  several  pretiictions  res- 
pecting the  Son  of  God,  and  his  being  endued  whh 
the  Spirit  of  the  Lord — ''  I  have  put  m?/ Spirit  upon 
him." — ''  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is  upon 
me,"  &;c.  These  predictions  wi^re  fulfilled  on  the 
day  of  Christ's  baptism,  when  the  Holy  Ghost  de- 
scended upon  him.  Matthew  says,  "  the  Spirit  of 
God  descended;"  Mark  and  John  simply  say, 
"  the  Spirit  descended;"  but  Luke,  in  giving  the 
same  account,  says,  "  the  Holy  Ghost  descended." 
From  these  passages  it  is  evident,  that  "  the  S^-ji- 
rit,"  "the  Spiritof  the  Lord,""  the  Spirit  of  God," 
and  "  the  Holy  Ghost,"  mean  the  same  thing. 
Moreover,  when  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given  to  the 
apostles  in  such  an  extraordinary  manner,  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  Peter  in  his  sermon  said,  "  This 
is  that  which  was  spoken  of  by  the  prophet  Joel, 
And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  saith 
God,  that  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all 
flesh." 

There  is  another  class  of  parallel  texts  which 
may  help  us  to  some  correct  ideas  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  When  Christ  sent  forth  his  disciples  to 
preach,  he  forewarned  them  that  they  should  be 


196       On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

brought  before  governours  and  kings  for  his  sake; 
"  But,"  said  he,  "  when  they  deliver  you  up,  take 
no  thought  how  or  what  ye  shall  speak  ;  for  it  shall 
be  given  you  in  that  same  hour  what  ye  shall  speak  : 
for  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Spirit  of  your 
Father  which  speaketh  in  you."  [Mat.  x.  19,  20.] 
This  is  Matthew's  representation. — Mark  ex- 
presses the  same  thing  thus,  "  For  it  is  not  ye  that 
^peak,  but  the  Holy  Gh>st,"  [Mark  xiii.  11.] — 
Luke  says,  "  For  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  teach  you 
in  the  sanne  hour  what  ye  ought  to  say."  [xii.  12.] 
And  Luke,  in  another  place,  repeats  this,  or  a 
similar  promise  of  Christ,  in  these  words,  "  Fori 
will  give  you  a  mouth,  and  wisdom,  which  all  your 
adversaries  shall  not  be  able  to  gainsay  norresisl." 
[ch.  xxi.  15.]  From  these  several  passages  com- 
pared, it  clearly  appears,  that  the  Spirit  of  the 
Father,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  the  same  thing ; 
that  the  Spirit  of  the  Father  speaking  in  them,  the 
Holy  Ghost's  speaking,  the  Holy  Ghost's  teaching 
them  what  they  ought  to  speak,  and  Christ's  giving 
them  a  mouth  and  wisdom,  are  all  of  the  same  im- 
port;  and  that  the  sum  of  the  promise  to  the  apos- 
tles was,  that  they  should  be  endued  with  supernat- 
ural sufficiency  or  assistance  on  such  occasions. 

2.  That  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  Spirit  of  God,  is 
not  a  distinct  Person,  may  appear  from  a  number 
of  other  terms  which  are  used  as  synonymous. 

The  hreath  of  the  Lord  is  used  as  synonymous 
with  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord.  The  wicked  are  rep- 
resented as  consumed  both  by  the  ''^  breath  oi  the 
Lord,"  and  by  the  "  %n7  of  the  Lord"—"  By 
the  blast  of  God  they  perish,  and  by  the  hreath  of 
his  mouth  are  they  consumed" — •'  And  then  shall 
that  wicked  be  revealed  whom  the  Lord  shall  con- 
sume with  the  Spirit  of  his  mouth,^^     Moreover,  as 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  197 

an  emblem  of  giving  the  Spirit,  Christ  breathed  on 
his  disciples,  and  said,  "Receive  ye  the  Holy 
Ghost."* 

The  HAND  of  the  Lord  and  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  are  used  as  synonymous.  "  So  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  lifted  me  up,  and  took  me  away — but  the 
HAND  of  the  Lord  was  strong  upon  me" — ''  By  his 
Spirit  he  hath  garnished  the  heavens  ;  his  hand 
hath  formed  the  crooked  serpent" — "  The  heavens 
are  the  work  of  thy  hand?'* — "  And  the  hand  of  the 
Lord  was  with  them,  and  a  great  multitude  believed 
and  turned  to  the  Lord." 

The  finger  of  God  and  the  Spirit  of  God  are  sy- 
nonymous. *'  By  his  Spirit  he  hath  garnished  the 
heavens" — '  I  consider  the  heavens  the  work  of 
thy  fingers'*'* — ''  But  if  I  cast  out  devils  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  then  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come 
unio  you" — "  But  if  I  with  iht  finger  of  God  cast 
out  devils,  no  doubt  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come 
upon  you." 

Can  it  be  viewed  as  proper  or  respectful  to 
speak  of  one  self-existent  Person  as  the  6rea/^,  the 
hand,  or  the  finger,  of  another  co-equal  Person  ? 

As  the  arm,  the  hand,  or  the^n^er  of  a  person, 
is  subordinate  to  his  will,  so  the  Spirit  of  God  is 
uniformly  represented  a?  subordinate  to  the  will  of 
God.  Anrl  as  any  thing  which  is  done  by  the  hand 
of  a  man,  is  done  by  the  man,  so  any  thing  which 
is  done  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  is  done  by  God.  Ac- 
cordingly, in  the  Scriptures,  the  same  things  are  at 
one  lime  attributed  to  God,  and  at  another  to  the 
Spirit  of  God,  or  the  Holy  Spirit. 

*  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  and  the  breath  of  the  Lord  are  the 
same  io  the  original.     Is  the  breath  of  the  L^rd  a  Persou?    If  no*, 
neither  is  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  or  the  Holy  Spirit. 
17* 


1 88        On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

3.  The  metaphors  made  use  of  in  Scripture  to 
represent  the  Spirit,  the  act  of  giving  or  sending 
the  Spirit,  and  the  descent  of  the  Spirit,  are  clearly 
against  the  opinion  that  the  Spirit  is  a  distinct 
Person.  Water  is  the  metaphor  most  frequently 
used  to  represent  the  Spirit;  and  the  act  of  send- 
ing or  giving  the  Spirit  is  represented  by  pouring 
out,  shedding  forth,  sprinkling,  washing,  or  baptiz- 
ing;  and  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  is  compared  to 
the  descent  of  rain  and  dew. 

Giving  the  Spirit  is  also  compared  to  giving  wa- 
ter to  drink,  and  to  anointing  with  oil.  And  in  re- 
ference to  the  impression  the  Spirit  makes  on  the 
hearts  of  saints,  it  is  compared  to  ink. 

Can  you,  sir,  suppose,  that  these  metaphors  and 
representations  properly  apply  to  a  Person,  or  to 
the  act  of  sending  a  self  existent  Person  ?  Pouring 
out  and  sprinkling  are  perhaps  the  most  common 
metaphors  to  represent  the  act  of  sending  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  what  metaphors  could  you  invent  more 
improper  to  represent  the  act  of  sending  a  Person  ? 
It  is  God  who  says,  "  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit." 
And  if  you  say  by  God  is  meant  only  one  of  three 
self-pxislent  Persons,  will  you  also  say  that  one 
self-existent  Person  promises  that  he  will  pour  out 
another  self-existent  Person  ? 

Permit  me,  sir,  to  ask,  what  do  you  mean  when 
you  pray  to  God  to  pour  out  his  Spirit  ?  Do  you 
mean  to  ask  one  self-existent  Person  to  pour  out 
another  ?  Do  you  not  mean  to  ask  God  to  make  a 
gracious  display  of  his  fulness  for  the  production  of 
son,'P  important  effects  ? 

When  you  speak  of  a  great  outpouring  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  do  you  mean  to  represent  that  one 
self-existent  Person  has  made  a  great  outpouring 
of  another  co-equal  Person?     Do  you  not  mean 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,        199 

that  God  has  made  a  great  display  of  his  power, 
wisdom,  and  goodness,  upon  the  hearts  and  minds 
of  men?  It  is  presumed  you  will  admit  that  the 
latter  is  your  meaning.  And  it  is  a  comforting 
thought  that  my  views  of  the  Spirit  not  only  accord 
with  the  natural  import  of  Scripture  language,  but 
with  what  appears  to  be  the  real  views  of  God's 
people  in  their  prayers  for  the  Spirit. 

4.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  spoken  of  in  the  Scrip- 
tures as  something  which  may  be  given  by  mea- 
sure^  or  without  measure  ;  and  when  communicated 
or  displayed  by  measure,  we  may  speak  of  a  residue. 

After  John  the  Baptist  had  seen  the  emblem  of 
the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  Son  of  God, 
he  not  only  bare  record  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God, 
but  al«o  that  "  He  whom  God  hath  sent,  speaketh 
the  words 'of  God  ;  for  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by 
measure  unto  Arm."  In  this  verse,  the  Son's  having 
the  Spirit  without  measure,  is  given  as  the  reason 
why  the  words  which  he  speaketh  are  the  words  of 
God. 

As'the  Son  of  God  had  the  Spirit  not  by  mea- 
sure, so  he  had  it  in  a  manner  that  he  could  com- 
municate  it  to  others  ;  therefore  John  further  testi- 
fied, "  This  is  He,  or  the  same  is  He,  which  bap- 
tizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost, "^"^  But  while  the  Son 
had  the  Spirit  without  measure,  the  apostles  and 
saints  had  it  by  measure. 

The  prophft  MJachi,  in  bearing  testimony 
against  the  conduct  of  the  Jews  in  putting  away 
their  wives,  brings  into  view  the  wise  conduct  of 
God  in  creation,  in  making  but  one  woman  for  one 
man — **  And  did  not  he  make  one?  yet  had  he  the 
residue  of  the  Spirit.'^^  The  idea  intended  to  be 
communicated  appears  to  be  this,  that  God  did  not 
neglect  to  make  more  than  one  woman  for  one  man 


200       On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

through  any  defect  of  wisdom,  power,  or  goodness. 
Had  it  been  best,  he  was  all-sufficient  to  have  made 
more,  and  would  have  done  it.  Does  not,  then,  this 
text  plainly  suggest,  that  by  the  Spirit  is  intended 
the  fulness  or  all-sufficiency  of  God  ?  And  do  not  the 
phrases,  the  Spirit  by  measure^  and  the  residue  of  the 
Spirit,  naturally  oppose  the  opinion  that  by  the  Spi- 
rit is  intended  a  distinct  and  independent  Person? 

As  infinite  wisdono  saw  fit  not  to  place  me  on  a 
level  with  you,  and  most  of  my  brethren  in  the  mi- 
nistry, in  respect  to  the  advantages  of  a  learned 
education,  you  may  think  it  improper  for  me  to 
suggest  any  argument  from  the  Greek  language  res-, 
pecting  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  not  pretending  to 
much  knowledge  of  that  language,  permit  me  to  ask 
a  few  questions.  Are  not  the  articles  and  pronouns 
in  the  Greek  language,  agreeing  with  the  terms 
Holy  Spirit,  uniformly  of  the  neuter  gender  ?  And 
are  not  the  articles  and  pronouns  agreeing  with  the 
Father  and  Son,  of  the  masculine  gender?  And 
what  is  the  ground  of  this  distinction,  if  the  Spirit 
be  a  proper  Person  ? 

In  reply  to  these  questions,  it  has  been  said,  that 
the  noun,  Spirit,  is  of  the  neuter  gender;  and  the 
genius  of  the  Greek  language  requires,  of  course, 
that  the  articles  and  pronouns  should  be  of  the 
neuter  gender.  All  this  is  easily  believed  ;  nor  is 
it  seen  that,  in  this  respect,  the  genius  of  the  Greek 
language  differs  from  our  own.  But  why,  sir,  is 
the  noun  neuter  ?  And  how  did  you  know  that  it 
was  neuter,  but  by  the  neuter  articles  and  pro^ 
nouns  ?  Had  masculine  articles  and  pronouns  been 
uniformly  used  throughout  the  New  Testament,  as 
agreeing  with  the  noun,  Spirit,  would  you  ever  have 
known  or  thought  that  the  noun  was  of  the  neuter 
gender  ? 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,        201 

In  some  instances,  the  translators  gave  us  the 
pronouns,  agreeing  with  the  Spirit,  in  the  neuter 
gender,  according  to  the  Greek — "  The  Spirit  itself 
beareth  witness  with  our  Spirit." — "  The  Spirit 
itself  mak^ih  intercession  for  us." — Instead  o( itself 
they  might  have  said  himself  as  well  as  to  have 
given  us  Ae,  his^  him,  for  it,  its,  &c.  And  if  they 
had  as  uniformly  given  us  the  pronouns  in  the  neu- 
ter, as  they  are  so  in  the  Greek,  the  appearance  of 
the  Spirit's  being  a  distinct  Person  would  have 
been  nearly  excluded  from  the  Bible.  And  we 
should  have  as  much  reason  to  suppose  that  by 
*'  our  Spirits"  are  intended  Persons  distinct  from 
ourselves,  as  that  by  the  "  Spirit  of  God"  is  intend- 
ed a  Person  distinct  from  the  Father.  This  pro- 
bably would  have  been  completely  the  case,  unless 
we  should  have  had  some  source  of  information,  by 
which  we  should  have  been  able  to  correct  the 
natural  import  of  Iq^pirprl  language. 

This  subject  of  the  pronouns  is  not  introduced  as 
having  had  any  influence  in  forming  my  opinion  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  It  was  formed  previous  to  any 
information  on  this  particular.  Yet,  in  my  view, 
this  circumstance  corroborates  that  opinion,  and  is 
worthy  of  the  most  serious  attention. 

No  person,  in  conversation  with  me,  has  pre- 
tended to  deny  the  fact,  that  the  pronouns  in  Greek 
for  the  Spirit  are  of  the  neuter  gender  ;  and  no  one 
has  given  me  any  satisfactory  reason  why  they 
should  be  translated  as  personal  pronouns  of  the 
masculine  gender.  It  is,  however,  possible,  that 
you,  or  some  other  person,  may  yet  do  it ;  but  until 
it  is  done,  you  will  allow  me  to  consider  the  argu- 
ment in  view,  as  of  great  weight  against  the  per- 
sonality of  the  Holy  Spirit. 


202        On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 


LETTER  II. 

Some  passages  considered^  which  have  beevL  supposed 
to  support  the  Personality  of  the  Holyopirit, 

REV.  SIR, 

It  may  be  proper  now  to  pay  some  attention  to 
those  passages  of  Scripture,  which  have  been  sup- 
posed most  certainly  to  imply  the  distinct  personali- 
ty of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

1  Cor.  ii.  10.  *'The  Spirit  searcheth  all  things, 
yea  the  deep  things  of  God." 

This  passage  has  much  of  the  appearance  of  fa- 
vouring the  personality  of  the  Spirit.  But  if  we 
candidly  attend  to  the  following  verse,  this  appear- 
ance may  disappear — "  For  what  man  knoweth  the 
things  of  a  man,  savp  tH<=  pjoi^^-it  nf  man  that  is  in 
him  ?  Even  so,  the  things  of  God  knoweth  no  man, 
but  the  Spirit  of  God."  It  is  obvious,  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  is  here  represented  as  bearing  the 
same  relation  to  God,  as  the  spirit  of  a  man  does  to 
the  man.  But  as  a  man  and  his  spirit  are  but  one 
person,  so  God  and  his  Spirit  are  represented  as 
one  Person. 

Mr.  Jones  has  quoted  the  last  of  these  verses,  to 
prove,  in  opposition  to  Arians,  that  the  Spirit  of 
God  is  essentially  God,  as  truly  so  as  the  spirit  of 
man  is  essentially  man.  This  text  does  indeed 
afford  a  conclusive  argument  against  the  Arian  hy- 
pothesis ;  but  it  also  affords  an  argument  equally 
conclusive  against  the  hypothesis  of  Mr.  Jones.  It 
is  on  the  ground  of  the  comparison  or  parallel  exhi- 
bited in  the  text,  that  Mr.  Jones  shows  this  text  to 
be  opposed  to  tke  Arian  scheme  ^  and  on  the  same 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,        203 

ground  it  is  as  clearly  opposed  to  his  own,  unless 
he  would  un'lertake  to  say  that  a  man  and  his  spirit 
are  two  persons.  If  he  could  make  this  appear  to 
be  true,  then  he  might  well  argue  that  God  and  his 
Spirit  are  also  two  Persons. 

Acts  V.  3.  "  But  Peter  said,  Ananias,  why  bath 
Satan  filled  thine  heart  to  lie  unto  the  Holy  Ghost  ?" 

Peter  and  other  apostles  had  been  filled  with  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  a  remarkable  manner;  and  it  was 
doubtless  by  the  Spirit  of  God  that  Peter  was  ena- 
bled to  discern  the  deceit  Sind  falsehood  of  Ananias. 
His  lying,  therefore,  was  really  lying  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  Ananias  had  been  a  witness  of  the  wonder- 
ful things  which  God  had  done,  and  that  the  apos- 
tles had  done,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  in  consf  quence 
of  being  "  endued  with  power  from  on  high,"  and 
for  him,  in  the  face  of  those  manifestations  of  Di- 
vine goodness,  wisdom,  and  power,  to  come  for- 
ward with  a  lie  or  deceitful  pretence  to  the  apostles^ 
was  truly  to  '*•  tempt  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,"  or  to 
tempt  the  Lord  to  display  the  same  power  in  his 
destruction,  that  had  been  displayed  for  the  salva- 
tion ol  others. 

Heb.  ifi.  7.  "  Wherefore,  as  the  Holy  Ghost  saith^ 
To-day  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice." 

We  have  many  instances  in  Scripture,  in  which 
it  is  represented  that  the  Holy  Spirit  spake^  said^ 
&;c.  The  words  of  Peter  will  f>xplain  the  matter — 
"  Holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost."  [2  Peter  i.  2L]  God  by  his 
Sjxirit  or  fulness  taught  them  what  '^  they  ought  to 
speak." 

2  Cor.  xiii.  14.  *'  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  be  with  you  all.     Amen." 

This  passage  has  often  been  urged  with  conside- 


204        On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

rable  confidence  as  a  proof  that  there  are  three  self- 
existent  Persons  in  God,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  one  of  those  Persons,  But  a  little  attention  to 
the  natural  import  of  the  passage  may  be  sufficient 
to  show  that  neither  of  these  ideas  are  implied. 
We  may  note — 

1.  God  is  here  named  as  a  person  distinct  from 
ihf'  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  Jesus  Chrisr  is  named  as 
a  Person  distinct  from  (he  self-existent  God. 

2.  The  text  does  not  say,  "  communion  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  as  though  the  Spirit  were  a  Person; 
but  "  communion  o/the  Hol>  Ghost,"  as  though  the 
Spirit  were  something  to  be  received.  We  have  a 
similar  phraseology,  1  Cor.  x.  16.  ''  The  cup  of 
blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of 
the  blood  of  Christ  P^  Neither  the  cup  nor  the 
blood  of  Chrisi  is  a  person;  but  a  benefit  of  which 
we  may  be  the  thankful  partakers.  The  imjiort 
of  the  benediction  may  be  this.  May  you  experi- 
ence the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the 
love  of  God.  by  being  made  thankful  partakers  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  to  sanctify,  to  teach,  to  support,  and 
to  comfort  you  for  ever. 

The  phrase  "fellowship  of  the  Spirit,"  is  the 
same  in  the  original  as  communioji  of  the  Spirit. 
This  by  Poole's  Continuators  is  explained  to  mean, 
communion  among  saints  in  the  *■'  grace  of  the  Spi- 
rit."    [Phil.  ii.  1.] 

In  our  Saviour's  affectionate  discourse  with  his 
disciples  before  his  passion,  for  their  comfort  and 
support,  he  promised  them  the  Holy  Spirit  under 
the  title  of  the  Comforter.  The  substance  of  what 
he  said  in  that  discourse,  respecting  the  character 
of  the  Spirit,  shall  here  be  brought  into  view. 

"  And  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give 
you  another  Comforter,  that  he  may  abide  with  you 


071  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,       205 

for  ever,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth."  [John  xiv.  16, 
17.] 

'*  But  the  Comforter^  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost, 
whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he  shall 
teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  to  your  remem- 
brance all  things  whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you." 
[John  xiv.  26.] 

"  But  when  the  Comforter  is  come,  whom  I  will 
send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  even  the  Spirit  of 
truth  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  he  shall 
testify  of  mej'     [John  xv.  16.] 

"  If  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come 
unto  you  ;  but  if  I  depart,  I  will  send  him  unto 
you  ;  and  when  he  is  come,  he  will  reprove  the 
world  of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment." 
[John  xvi.  7,  8.] 

'*  When  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  he  will 
guide  you  into  all  truth,  for  he  shall  not  speak  of 
himself;  but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear,  that  shall 
he  speak  :  And  he  will  show  you  things  to  come. 
He  shall  glorify  me,  for  he  shall  receive  of  mine, 
and  shall  show  it  unto  you."     [John  xvi.  13.] 

Had  weno  other  passages  of  Scripture,  by  which 
to  determine  the  character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we 
should  most  naturally  be  led  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  distinct  Person,  Yet,  it  may 
be  asked,  should  we  conclude  that  the  Spirit  is  a 
Person  independent  and  equal  with,  the  Father?  For 
throughout  the  whole  description,  is  not  the  Spirit 
represented  as  subordinate  to  the  will  of  the  Fa- 
ther l 

In  these  passages,  sir,  we  may  contemplate  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  prnper\y personijled  under  another 
name,  for  the  same  reason  that  we  personify  the 
natural  sun  when  we  wish  to  giv  e  a  striking  and  im- 
pressive view  of  its  glory,  utility,  and  importance. 
18 


206        On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

And  yet  there  seems  to  have  been  particular  care 
taken  that  our  minds  should  not  be  misled  by  the 
personification.  If  you,  sir,  will  be  at  the  trouble 
of  removing  trom  these  verses  the  masculine  pro- 
nouns, and  write  neuter  pronouns  in  their  room,  so 
far  as  the  original  will  justify  such  a  change,  you 
may  find  the  personification  far  less  strong  than  it 
is  in  our  translation.  After  you  have  made  this 
change  in  the  pronouns,  you  will  not  find  the  Spirit 
more  strongly  personified,  than  the  spirit  or  soul  of 
man  is  often  personified,  or  spoken  of,  as  a  distinct 
person  from  the  man.  Thus  the  Psalmist  addresses 
his  soul,  "  Why  art  thou  cast  down,  O  my  soul  ? 
Why  art  thou  disquieted  within  me  ?  Hope  thou  in 
God,"  &:c.  The  rich  fool  is  represented  as  address- 
ing his  soul  as  it  would  be  natural  to  address  ano- 
ther person — "  I  will  say  to  my  soul,  Soul,  thou 
hast  goods  laid  up  for  many  years,  take  thine  ease, 
eat,  drink,  and  be  merry." 

Moreover,  there  are  several  things  said  of  the 
Comforter,  which  naturally  suggest  the  idea  that  it 
is  not  a  Person,  but  an  emanation  of  the  Divine  ful- 
ness, which  is  intended.  When  Christ  had  named 
the  Comforter,  he  immediately  explained — the  Spi- 
rit of  truth;  which  naturally  suggests  the  idea,  that 
what  he  was  speaking  of  was  an  efficient  influence 
or  emanation  from  that  God  who  is  truth.  Besides, 
he  said,  "  The  Holy  Ghost  which  proceedeth  from 
the  Father;"  and  this  is  the  precise  idea  of  emawa- 
iion.  But  it  does  not  comport  with  the  idea,  that 
the  Spirit  is  an  independent  person,  co-equal  with 
the  Father.  There  is,  however,  still  more  deci- 
sive evidence  to  be  produced. 

These  gracious  promises  of  the  Comforter  were 
renewed  to  the  apostles  after  Christ  had  risen  from 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,        207 

the  dead  ;  and  in  renewing  the  promises,  the.  per- 
sonijication  was  wholly  omitled. 

In  giving  the  account  of  what  Christ  said  to  his 
apostles  between  the  resurrection  and  ascension, 
Luke  in  his  gospel  slates,  that  Christ  said  to  them, 
"  And  behold  I  send  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon 
you  ;  but  tarry  ye  at  Jerusalem  until  ye  be  endued 

WITH  POWER  FROM   ON  HIGH." Lukc  XXiv.   49. 

In  the  introduction  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
Luke  brings  the  same  thing  again  into  view,  but  in 
a  different  form.  After  mentioning  that  Christ 
"showed  himself  alive  after  his  passion,  by  many 
infallible  proofs,  being  seen  of  the  apostles  forty 
days,  and  speaking  of  things  pertaining  to  the  king- 
dom of  God,"  he  adds,  ''And  being  assembled  toge- 
ther with  them,  commanded  them  that  they  should 
not  depart  from  Jerusalem,  but  wait  for  ihe. promise 
of  the  Father,  which,  saith  he,  ye  have  heard  of  me. 
For  John  truly  baptized  zvith  zcater,  but  ye  shall  be 
ba(;tizedty///i  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence." 

The  apostles  were  inquisitive,  and  asked,  saying, 
'^  Lord,  wilt  thou  at  (his  litne  restore  again  the 
kingdom  to  Israel  ?  And  he  said  unto  them,  It  is  not 
for  you  to  know  the  times  or  the  seasons  which  the 
Father  hath  put  in  his  own  power.  But  ye  shall 
receive  power  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon 
you,"^^ 

In  these  several  accounts  there  is  an  obvious  re- 
ference to  the  prior pro7nise  of  the  Comforter  ^  and 
these  passaojes  serve  to  explain  the  import  of  that 
promise.  To  be  endued  with  power  from  on  high., 
to  he  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  have  the 
Comforter  sent  unto  them,  are  all  the  same  thing. 
The  substance  of  the  whole  was  this,  that  they 
should  be  endued  with  supernatural  powers,  sirper* 
natural  fortitude.^  supernatural  support,   assistance, 


208         On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

and  comfort ;  and  thus  be  prepared  to  go  forth  in 
the  name  of  Christ  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  to  con- 
firm their  doctrines  by  signs  and  wj07<c/er5  or  incon- 
testable miracles. 

And  it  may  be  worthy  of  particular  notice,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  represented  as  something  with  which 
the  apostles  should  be  baptized,  as  John  baptized 
with  water.  "  John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but 
ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,''^  The 
Holy  Spirit,  in  the  baptism  which  the  apostles 
were  to  receive,  answers  to  the  water  in  the  bap- 
tism administered  by  John.  And  unless  we  may 
suppose  that  the  zuater  in  John's  baptism  was  an 
agent,  we  may  not  suppose  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  an 
agent  in  the  baptism  received  by  the  apostles.* 

The  promise  of  Christ  was  fulfilled;  for  "  when 
the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,  the  apostles 
were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place.  And  sud- 
denly there  came  a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a 
rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house 
where  they  were  sitting.  And  there  appeared  unto 
them  cloven  tongues,  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  on 
each  of  them.  And  they  were  all  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak  with  other  tongues 
as  the  Spirit  gave  them  vtterance,'^'^ 

Thus,  sir,  was  Christ's  promise  of  the  Comforter 
fulfilled;  the  apostles  were  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Spirit }  they  were  endued  zoith  pozver  frotn  on  high  ; 
and  as  the  first  fruits  of  this  power  they  spake  lan- 

*  As  the  metaphor  o{  ivater  is  abundantly  used  to  represent  (he 
Hoi}/  Spirit,  baptising  with  the  Holy  Spirit  harmonizes  with  that 
metaphor  ;  the  same  ns  pouring  out,  shedding  forth,  sprinkling,  &c. 
In  the  New  Testament,  six  times  we  have  the  representation  of 
baptizing  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  where  shall  we  find  one  in- 
stance in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  as  an  ^^gent  or  *4c?- 
ministrator  m  baptizing. 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,        209 

guages  that  they  had  never  studied  or  learned  ;  and 
they  spake  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance. 

Let  us  now  attend  to  Peter's  account  of  the  fuL 
filment  of  the  promise  of  the  Comforter,  which  he 
gave  in  his  sermon  on  that  memorable  occasion. 

"  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  up,  vthereof  we  all 
are  witnesses.  Therefore  being  by  the  right  hand 
of  God  exalted,  and  having  received  of  the  Father 
ihe  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed  torth 
this  which  ye  now  see  and  hear." 

As  the  Holy  Spirit  in  this  baptism  answered  to 
the  water  in  John's  baptism,  and  as  Christ  himself 
had  become  the  administrator  of  this  baptism,  Pe- 
ter with  great  propriety  said,  "He  hath  shed  forth 
this  which  ye  now  see  and  hear." 

Thus  evident  it  is,  that,  in  Peter's  view,  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  something  which  may  be  shed  forth  by  the 
Son  of  God  to  whom  the  Spirit  had  been  given  not 
by  measure ;  by  him,  in  whom  it  had  pleased  the 
Father  that  all  fulness  should  dwell.  The  same 
view  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  given  by  Paul,  in  his 
epistle  to  Titus — **  According  to  his  mercy,  he  sav- 
ed us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us  abundant- 
Iv  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour."  [Titus  iii. 
5,  6.] 

If  by  the  Holy  Spirit  be  meat  the  fulness  of  God, 
or  an  efficient  emanation  of  Divine  fulness,  the 
word  shed  may  very  properly  be  used  to  express 
the  manoer  of  its  being  given  or  sent.  But  who 
will  say  that  this  is  a  proper  term  by  which  to  ex- 
press the  act  of  giving  or  sending  a  Person  ?  And  if 
we  may  believe  that  the  apostles  understood  the 
promise  of  "  the  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  may  we  not  believe  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
18* 


210       t)n  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

is  not  a  Person  distinct  from  the  Father  and  the 
Son  ? 

Thus,  sir,  it  has  been  my  endeavour  to  explain 
what  Christ  intended  by  the  Comforter,  by  making 
the  Scriptures  their  own  interpreter.  You  will  not, 
it  is  hoped,  see  any  sophistry  in  my  reasonings  upon 
this  particular.  And  if  not,  it  is  believed  you  must, 
at  least,  very  strongly  doubt  the  correctness  of  any 
theory  which  supposes  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  a  Per- 
son. For  in  no  other  instance  is  the  Spirit  so  strong- 
ly personified  as  under  the  name  of  the  Comforter. 

Matt.  xxviii=  19,  and  1  John  v.  7,  will  be  duly 
noticed  in  Part  IV. 


LETTER  III. 

Other  considerations,  to  show,  that  by  the  Holy  Spi' 
rit  is  not  intended  a  distinct  Person, 

REV.  SIR, 

Having  endeavoured  faithfully  to  examine  most 
of  those  passages  of  Scripture  which  have  the 
greatest  appearance  of  favouring  your  views  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  believing  it  has  been  shown  that 
they  are  perfectly  consistent  with  my  own  without 
any  forced  construction,  some  farther  considera- 
tions, which  have  had  great  weight  on  my  mind 
against  the  hypothesis,  that  the  Spirit  is  a  distinct 
and  self-existent  Person,  will  now  be  added. 

1.  Much  is  said  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  mutual 
love  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  the  dis- 
position of  each  to  honour  the  other;  but  where 
shall  we  find  the  least  intimation  of  any  love-on  the 
part  of  the   Father  or  the  Son  towards  the  Holy 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirits        2 1 1 

Spirit  as  a  Person  ?  or  on  the  part  of  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit towards  either  the  Father  or  the  Son  ?  Yet  if 
the  Spirit  be  a  Person,  as  distinct  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  as  the  Son  is  from  the  Father,  should 
we  not  have  reason  to  expect  the  same  evidence  of 
mutual  love  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other  ?  And 
since  the  evidence  of  mutual  love  between  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son  is  so  abundant  in  the  Scriptures, 
and  no  mention  is  made  of  any  love  between  the 
Father  and  the  Spirit,  nor  between  the  Son  and 
the  Spirit,  have  we  not  strong  ground  to  believe 
that  the  Spirit  is  not  a  distinct  Person  ? 

2.  We  have  much  said  in  the  Scriptures  of  the 
love  of  the  Father  towards  mankind,  and  also  of  the 
love  of  the  Son  ;  but  what  is  said  of  the  love  of  the 
Spirit  towards  our  ruined  race  ?    Not  a  word. 

3.  We  are  required  to  love  the  Father,  and  to 
love  the  Son,  as  two  distinct  Persons;  but  where 
do  you  find  any  requirement  to  love  the  Spirit  as 
a  Person  distinct  from  the  Father  or  the  Son  ?  Not 
in  the  Bible. 

4.  We  have  both  precept  and  example  for  wor- 
shipping the  Father  and  the  Son,  as  iwo  distinct 
Persons  ;  but  have  we  either  precept  or  example 
in  the  Scriptures  for  paying  Divine  homage  to  the 
Spirit  as  a  Person  ? 

5.  We  have  an  account  in  the  visions  of  John, 
of  the  throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb  ;  but  does 
John  make  any  mention  of  the  throne  of  the  H)Iy 
Spirit  ?  Or  is  there  any  intimation  in  the  Bible,  that 
the  Spirit,  as  a  Person,  has  a  throne  in  heaven  ? 

Now,  sir,  on  the  supposition  that  the  Spirit  is  a 
Person  co-equal  with  God  the  Father,  how  will  you 
be  able  to  account  for  these  distinctions^  ov  these 
omissions^  in  the  sacred  Scriptures?  If  we  could 
find  the  same  evidence  of  mutual  love  between  the 


212        On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son  ;  and  the  same  evidence  that  the  Spi- 
rit, as  a  Person,  loves  mankind,  as  that  the  Father 
and  the  Son  do  ;*  or  if  we  could  find  such  evidence 
in  favour  of  loving  and  honouring  the  Spirit  as  a 
distinct  Person,  as  for  loving  and  honouring  the 
Father  and  the  Son  ;  it  might  seem  presumptuous 
to  call  in  question  the  personality  of  the  Spirit. 
But  since  the  Scriptures  are  silent  in  all  these  im- 
portant respects,  suflfer  me  to  dissent  from  your 
opinion  ;  and  to  take  the  Scriptures  for  my  guide 
in  preference  to  any  human  theory. 

6.  Though  St.  John  had  no  vision  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  personally  seated  on  the  throne,  he  had  a 
vision  of  the  enthroned  Lamb  of  God,  as  having 
seven  horns  and  seven  eyes,  which  are  the  seven 
Spirits  of  God.  These  seven  Spirits  of  God  have 
been  understood  by  some  Aihanasian  expositors  to 
be  the  same  as  the  Holy  Spirit,  This  appears  to 
be  correct.  But  that  an  individual  Person  should 
be  called  the  seven  Spirits  of  God,  musl  appear 
very  unnatural ;  but  if  by  the  Holy  Spirit  be  in- 
tended the  Divine  fulness  or  sufficiency,  this  may 
well  enough  be  called  the  seven  Spirits  of  God  in 
reference  to  its  perfection  and  manifold  operation. 
in  a  text,  several  times  quoted,  we  read,  with  res- 
pect to  the  Son,  that  "  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit 
by  measure  unto  him  •,"  and,  in  the  passage  now 

*  It  may  be  said,  that  "  the  love  of  the  Spirit"  is  once  mention- 
ed by  St.  Paul,  Rom.  xv.  30.  But  i*  is  needless  to  give  an  expo- 
sition of  my  own,  to  show  that  the  passage  does  not  represent  the 
Spirit  as  a  Person  loving.  If  may  sufl5(^e  to  copy  the  exposition  of 
Mr.  Poole's  Continuators,  who  were  Aihanasian  writers—"  And 
for  the  love  of  the  Spirit"—  q.  d.  "  If  you  love  the  Spirit  of  God  ; 
or  rather  if  the  grace  of  love  be  wrought  in  you  by  the  Spirit,  show 
It  in  this  tbiog.^' 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,       2 1 3 

before  us,  we  find  Christ  represented  as  having 
seven  horns  and  seven  eyes,  which  are  the  seven 
Spirits  of  God.  Horns  are  understood  to  be  an  em- 
blem of  power,  and  eyes  of  wisdoin.  Then  the 
seven  horns  and  seven  eyes  denote  \\\e  perfect  ful- 
ness of  Christ,  and  his  all- sufficiency  to  open  the 
book,  and  to  loose  the  seals,  or  to  direct  and  govern 
the  affairs  of  the  universe.  In  view  of  this  pleni- 
tude of  wisdom  and  power,  with  which  the  Son  was 
endued,  and  his  taking  the  book  and  opening  the 
seals,  all  that  stood  about  the  throne  '*  sung  a  new 
song,  saying,  Thou  art  worthy  to  take  the  book, 
and  to  open  the  seals  thereof;  for  thou  wast  slain^ 
and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy  blood,  out  of 
every  kindred,  and  tongue,  and  people,  and  na- 
tion."— Let  us,  my  dear  brother,  go  and  do  like- 
wise. 

Here  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  suggest  some  serious 
questions  for  your  consideration,  with  a  request  that 
you  would  weigh  them  in  an  even  balance. 

1.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  be  a  distinct  Person,  co- 
equal with  the  Father,  is  he  not  in  the  Scriptures 
exhibited  in  a  manner  which  appears  degrading^ 
and  truly  unaccountable  ;  as  bearing  the  same  re- 
lation to  God  as  an  attribute  ;  or  as  the  hand  or 
finger  of  God  :  as  being  constantly  subject  to  the 
control  or  the  will  of  another  Person  ;  never  exhi- 
bited as  a  distinct  object  of  worship  or  of  love  ; 
never  addressed  in  prayer  as  a  Person,  either  by 
the  saints,  or  by  Jesus  Christ,  though  the  Father 
was  often  addressed  ! 

2.  If  you,  and  those  with  you  in  sentiment,  do 
really  view  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  distinct  Person, 
equal  with  the  Father,  are  you  not  justly  chargeable 
with  want  of  respect,  yea  with  disrespect,  towards 


214        On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

the  Holy  Spirit  ?  How  seldom  do  we  hear  the 
Spirit  mentioned  in  pra)  er,  otherwise  than  as  some- 
thing which  is  subordinate  to  the  will  of  God,  which 
may  be  given,  sent,  or  poured  out,  for  our  benefit  ? 
At  the  cloise  of  your  prayers, you  often  mention  the 
Spirit,  as  though  you  thought  ii  to  be  a  Person  ; 
but  this  is  frequently  the  only  instance  in  which, 
through  the  whole  course  of  a  prayer,  there  is  the 
least  intimation  that  the  Spirit  is  viewed  as  a  Per- 
son. But  if,  in  your  view,  the  Scriptures  do  really 
authorize  the  belief  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  dis- 
tinct Person,  and  of  equal  dignity  with  the  Father, 
how  will  you  be  able  to  answer  for  your  inconsis- 
tency in  treating  the  Father  with  so  much  more 
respect  than  you  do  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  Has  not  the 
Holy  Spirit  reason  to  accuse  you  of  partiality  ? 
But  in  vindication  of  your  conduct,  you  may  say, 
and  that  with  great  propriety,  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  not  so  much  as  named ^s  a  Person  in  any  prayer 
recorded  in  the  Bible  ;  and  that  we  are  not  requir- 
ed to  address  prayers  to  the  Spirit  as  a  distinct  Per- 
son. But,  sir,  if  you  have  such  ample  ground  on 
which  you  may  justify  your  apparent  neglect  of  the 
Spirit,  have  you  not  reason  to  examine  the  grounds 
of  your  faith  ?  Does  not  the  very  ground  on  which 
you  would  justify  your  conduct  afford  reason  to 
doubt  the  correctness  of  your  theory  ? 

3.  Do  not  your  habitual, practical,  and  devotional 
views  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Ploly  Spirit, 
harmonize  much  better  with  my  present  theory, 
than  they  do  with  your  own?  This  may  seem  to 
you  an  extraordinary  question  ;  but  it  is  proposed, 
sir,  with  considerable  confidence,  that,  on  due  re- 
flection, if  you  answer  it  at  all,  it  must  be  in  the 
affirmative.  My  confidence  in  this  matter  results 
partly  from  experience,  and  partly  from  observa» 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit;       215 

lion.  When  you  approach  the  throne  of  grace,  and 
pour  out  your  UEART  before  God  without  any  studied 
respect  to  theory^  do  you  not  address  God  as  one 
Person  only  ?  Do  you  not  use  the  terms  God,  and 
Father,  d,&  perfectly  synonymous  ?  When  you  thank 
God  for  the  manifestation  of  his  love,  in  sending 
his  dear  Son  to  die  for  our  otfences,  do  you  not 
naturally  consider  the  Son  as  a  being  properly  dis- 
tinct from  the  Father,  naturally  subordinate  to  the 
Father,  but  exalted  with  the  Father's  right  hand? 
When  you  pray  to  God  that  he  would  joowr  out  his 
Holy  Spirit,  is  not  this  your  real  prayer,  that  God 
would  make  a  display  of  his  power,  wisdom,  and 
love,  for  the  production  of  some  desirable  effect  ? 
Do  you  not  mean  to  ask  for  some  efficient,  produc- 
tive emanation  of  his  fulness  ?  If,  in  your  habitual 
and  devotional  views,  the  Spirit  were  a  distinct 
Person,  CO  equal  with  the  Father,  would  it  not  be 
more  natural  lor  you,  in  praying  for  the  Spirit,  to 
address  your  petitions  direcdy  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
than  to  pray  the  Father  to  send  or  pour  out  his 
Spirit  ?  Does  it  not  then  appear  that  your  devo- 
tional and  habitual  views  are  conformable  to  the  the- 
ory I  have  adopted,  and  in  opposition  to  your  own  f 
How  then  will  you  be  able  to  vindicate  your  con- 
duct before  God,  from  a  charge  of  inconsistency, 
in  supporting  a  theory  which  is  repugnant  to  your 
own  habitual  and  devotional  views,  or  in  indulging 
habitual  and  devotional  views  which  are  repugnant 
to  the  theory  which  you  profess  to  believe  !  And 
permit  me  to  ask,  which  does  God  consider  the 
real  sentiments  of  your  hearty  those  which  you  ex- 
press in  advocating  your  theory,  or  those  which 
you  habitually  and  naturally  express  in  your  daily 
prayers  to  him  ? 

It  is,  sir,  most  sensibly  felt,  that  the  theories,  pre- 


216        On  the  CharacUr  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

possessions,  and  learning  of  the  Christian  world, 
are  at  present  not  on  my  side.  But  no  small  con- 
solation is  derived  by  considering  the  general 
tenour  and  natural  import  of  Bible  language  very 
clearly  in  favour  of  each  part  of  the  theory  set  forth 
in  the  foregoing  Letters.  It  is  also  consoling  to 
consider  the  language  of  Christian  devotion  in  such 
agreement  with  my  views,  that  whatever  may  be 
objected  against  them,  may,  with  equal  propriety, 
be  objected  against  the  most  devout  feelings  and 
language  of  my  brethren.  And  as  long  as  these 
things  shall  appear  so  much  on  my  side,  nothing 
can  deprive  me  of  the  pleasing  expectation  that  the 
theory  now  exposed  to  publick  view,  will  be  found 
substantially  correct,  approved  of  God,  and  that 
which  the  whole  family  of  Christ  will  ultimately 
receive,  and  rejoice  in  for  ever. 


PART  IV. 


AN  EXAMINATION  OF  DIFFICULT  PAS- 
SAGES  OF  SCRIP lUliE. 


.LETTER  L 

Rules  of  Interpretation  stated  and  applied. 

REV.  SIR, 

In  the  preceding  Letters,  my  views  of  many  pas- 
sages of  Scripture,  which  have  been  supposed  to 
favour  the  Athanasian  theory,  have  been  occasional- 
ly given.  But  there  are  others  to  which  no  distinct 
attention  has  been  paid.  It  is  rny  wish  to  have  er- 
rour  detected,  if  there  be  any  in  my  views.  Suffer 
me,  therefore,  to  lay  before  you  my  adopted  rules 
of  interpretation,  and  give  you  a  specimen  of  their 
appiicution. 

Rule  L  "  The  Scriptures  were  inspired,  to  in- 
struct cominon  readers,  by  using  words  according 
to  their  common  acceptation,  and  not  to  confound 
them  by  an  abuse  of  latiguage." 

The  language  in  which  this  rule  is  expressed,  is 
borrowed  from  Dr.  Spring's  sermon  on  the  self- 
existence  of  Christ,  and  is  applied  to  the  many 
tht)usands  of  texts  in  whioh  p'^'rsonal  pronouns  of 
the  singular  number  are  used  as  substitutes  for  the 
19 


^18  An  Examination  of 

nouns  God,  Lord  God,  &;c.  and  the  inference  is, 
that  God  is  one  Person  only. 

The  same  rule  is  applied  to  the  numerous  texts 
in  which  Christ  is  represented  as  the  Son  of  God, 
God's  OWN  and  only  Son;  and  the  inference  is, 
that  Christ  is  not  the  self  existent  God,  but  the  Son 
of  the  self-exisient  God. 

Rule  IL  The  terms  used  in  Revelation  must  be 
understood  in  a  sense  corresponding  with  some 
analogy  known  to  men. 

According  to  this  rule,  also,  it  is  inferred,  that 
the  Son  of  God  cannot  be  a  self-existent  Person. 
It  is  likewise  concluded,  that  there  are  no  passages 
of  Scripture  which  were  designed  to  teach  us  that 
three  Persons  are  but  one  intelligent  Being  ;  nor  that 
there  may  be  two  intelligent  Beings  in  one  Person, 
As  extraordinary  as  it  mi^y  seem,  both  ot  these  con- 
tradictory hypotheses  pertain  to  your  theory.  God 
you  suppose  to  be  three  distinct  Persons  ;  and  yet 
but  one  intelligent  Being  You  also  suppose  ihat 
Christ  is  both  God  and  a  Man  united  in  one  Person. 
This,  it  is  thought,  amounts  precisely  to  the  hypo- 
thesis of  two  intelligent  Beings  in  one  Person.  Is 
it  not,  sir,  extraordinary,  that  great  and  good  men 
should  adopt  two  hypotheses  so  manifestly  contra- 
dictory, while  neither  of  them  can  be  supported  by 
Scripture,  nor  illustrated  by  any  analogy  in  nature  1 

But  did  not  Christ  say,  /  and  my  Father  are 
ONE  ?  Yes,  sir  ;  but  be  never  said,  I  and  my  Fa- 
ther arr  but  one  intelligent  Being,  Nor  have  we 
any  anaiojjy  which  can  justify  j^uch  an  interpreta- 
tion of  tfie  words.  There  are  many  senses  in 
which  n  Father  and  a  Son  may  be  one,  besides  that 
of  one  Being,  And  in  no  other  case,  in  which  the 
words  are  used  by  a  Son,  should  we  have  the  least 
suspicion  that  this  is  the  intended  import.     God 


difficult  Passages  of  Scripture.  219 

and  Christ  may  be  of  one  nature  as  a  Father  and 
Son  ;  they  may  be  one  in  affection,  in  interest,  and 
in  operation ;  they  may  also  be  one  in  respect  to 
fulness  and  authority,  as  has  been  already  noted 
and  explained. 

When  Christ  made  this  declaration,  the  Jews 
accused  him  of  blasphemy,  and  of  "  making  him- 
self God."  But  Christ,  in  his  answer,  distinctly 
let  them  know  that  his  words  imported  no  more 
than  that  he  was  truly  the  Son  of  God,  and  as  such 
united  with  the  Father — ''  Say  ye  of  Him  whom 
the  Father  hath  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world, 
Thou  blasphemest,  because  I  said,  I  am  the  Son 
of  God." 

Rule  III,  So  far  as  the  Scriptures  may  interpret 
themselves,  by  comparing  Scripture  with  Scrip- 
ture, such  interpretation  is  to  be  preferred  to  any 
human  hypothesis. 

This  rule  has  been  found  of  extensive  applica- 
tion. The  Divine  names  and  titles  given  to  the 
Son  of  God  ;  the  Divine  works  and  honours  ascrib- 
ed to  him,  and  his  Divine  fulness,  are  all  distinctly 
accounted  for  in  the  Scriptures,  on  the  ground  of 
the  Father's  love  and  pleasure.  Therefore,  these 
titles,  these  works,  these  honours,  or  this  fulness, 
may  not  be  considered  as  evidence  of  the  personal 
self-existence  of  the  Son  of  God. , 

Rule  IV,  In  many  instances,  it  is  necessary  to 
take  into  view  the  customs  of  the  people  to  whom 
the  Scriptures  were  originally  communicated,  and 
to  consider  in  what  light  they  would  most  naturally 
understand  particular  passages. 

The  prophecies  respecting  the  Messiah  were 
probably  originally  written  for  the  comfort  and 
benetit  of  the  good  people  among  the  Israelites  or 
Jews  ;  at  least,  this   may  be  supposed  to  be  one 


220  An  Examination  oj^       * 

principal  object  of  the  predictions.  In  the  pro- 
phecies, the  promised  Messiah  was  called  by  va- 
rious names,  and  some  of  them  were  Divine  names, 
or  names  of  Divine  im.port.  He  was  not  only 
called  David,  and  David  the  King,  but  it  was  pre- 
dicted that  his  name  should  be  called  Emmanuel, 
Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God,  the 
Everlast;ng  Father,  and  the  Prince  of  Peace. 

If  we  would  know  how  a  Jew  would  be  likely  to 
understand  ihese  names  or  titles,  we  should  consi- 
der a  custom  which  was  common  among  the  Jews^ 
viz.  that  of  giving  significant  names  to  persons, 
places,  altars,  &lc.  At  the  close  of  our  great  Bibles 
"we  have  a  table  of  the  names  used  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, with  theirseveral  significations.  If  you  will 
examine  this  table,  you  will  find  that  other  Persons 
had  Divine  names,  besides  the  Messiah. — See  a 
few  of  these  names,  with  their  signification — Elia- 
shib,  the  God  of  conversion — Elijah,  God  the  Lord, 
or  the  strong  Lord — EJiphalet,  the  God  of  delive- 
rance— Elisha,  the  salvation  of  God — Lemuel.^  God 
with  them,  or  him.  They  also  gave  Divine  names, 
or  names  of  Divine  import,  to  places  and  altars — 
Jehovah-jireh,  the  Lord  will  see  or  provide — Jeho- 
vah-Mssi,  the  Lord  my  Banner^ El- elohe-Israel, 
God,  the  God  of  Israel. 

Now,  sir,  imagine  yourself  to  have  been  a  Jew, 
living  in  the  days  of  the  prophets,  and  perfectly 
acquainted  with  the  custom  of  giving  significant 
names  ;  then  consider  what  ideas  you  would  natu- 
rally have  taken  from  the  various  names  given  to 
the  promised  Messiah.  If  you  had  heard  him 
called  David,  or  David  the  Kiyig,  would  you  have 
supposed  that  the  Man  who  killed  Goliah  was  to 
appear  again  as  the  promised  Saviour  ?  If  you  had 
heard  the  prophet  say,  respecting  the  promised 


difficult  Passages  of  Scripture*  221 

Son,  They  shall  call  his  name  Emmanuel,  would 
you  have  supposed  that  God  himself  was  to  come 
as  the  promised  Messiah  ?  Would  you  not  rather 
have  supposed  the  Son  to  be  one  in  whom  God 
would  make  some  gracious  manifestations  of  him- 
self to  men  ?  If  you  had  heard  him  called  the 
Mighty  God,  and  Everlasting  Father,  would  it  not 
have  been  natural  for  you  to  suppose  that  the  Son 
was  to  be  one  in  whom  the  Mighty  God  and  Ever- 
lasting Father  would  make  surprising  manifesta- 
tions of  his  power  and  his  kindness  ?  If  you  had 
heard  him  called,  ''  The  Lord  our  Righteousness,'^^ 
what  would  have  been  more  natural  than  for  you  to 
have  supposed,  that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  one  in 
whom  Jehovah  would  display  his  righteousness,  or 
one  through  whose  righteousness  men  should  be 
benefited  by  Jehovah? 

Accustomed  as  the  Jews  were  to  believe  in  one 
God  only,  and  to  speak  of  that  God  as  only  one 
Person  ;  accustomed  as  they  were  to  the  use  of  sig- 
nificant names  of  high  import ;  would  it  not  have 
been  unspeakably  more  natural  for  them  to  un- 
derstand the  names  of  the  Messiah  as  significant, 
importing  some  such  ideas  as  I  have  mentioned, 
than  to  suppose  that  the  Son  to  be  born  was  the 
VERY  God  who  h'dd  promised  to  send  him  into  the 
world  ? 

The  prophet  did  not  say  the  Son  shall  be  Em- 
manuel, but  ^' they  shall  call  his  name  Emmanuel." 
He  did  not  say,  the  Son  shall  be  the  Mighty  God 
and  Everlasting  Father,  but  "  his  name  shall  be 
called,^^  &;c.  And  this  phraseology  was  probably 
used  with  direct  reference  to  the  custom  of  the  Jews 
in  giving  significant  names.  And  the  Son's  having 
he  Divine  names  thus  given  him  by  the  spirit  of 
prophecy,  is  no  proof  that  he  is  personally  the 
19* 


252  An  Examination  of 

self-existent  God,  any  more  than  his  being  called 
David,  or  David  the  Ki[)g,  is  a  proof  that  he  was 
personally  David  the  son  of  Jesse. 

It  may  be  useful,  m  this  connexion,  to  consider 
*"what  expectations  were  in  fact  excited  among  the 
Jews,  by  the  Divine  names  given  to  the  promised 
Messiah.  And  is  there,  sir,  any  evidence,  that  any 
Jew,  whether  learned  or  unlearned,  good  or  bad, 
ever  understood  the  Divine  names  given  to  the 
Messiah,  as  importing  thot  he  should  be  the  self- 
existent  God  ?  If  no  such  idea  was  excited  in  the 
minds  of  pious  Jews,  by  the  use  of  those  names,  we 
may  reasonably  suppose  that  no  such  idea  was  in- 
tended in  the  predictions. 


LETTER  II. 

A  fifth  Rule  of  Interpretation  stated  and  applied-. 

REV.    SIR,  ,, 

Permit  me  now  to  state  and  apply  another  rule 
of  interpretation. 

Rule  F.  Particular  phrases,  terms  and  epithets, 
are  to  be  understood  in  a  sense  which  is  consistent 
with  the  general  tenour  of  the  gospel,  and  the  cha- 
racter of  the  objects  to  which  they  are  applied. 

There  are  two  things  respecting  Jesus  Christ, 
which  are,  in  my  view,  supported  by  the  general 
tenour  of  the  gospel,  viz. 

1.  That  he  is  truly  the  Son  of  God. 

2.  That  he  obeyed,  suffered,  and  died,  to  open 
the  way  for  our  salvation. 

These  two  points  are  not  only  supported^by  the 
general  tenour  of  the  gospel,  but  they  appear  th 


difficult  Passages  of  Scripture,  2iJ3 

be  essential  to  the  gospel  plan  of  salvation.  If  we 
deny  these,  do  we  not  in  effect  deny  the  gospel  ?  If 
we  deny  these,  do  we  not  make  God  a  liar  ? 

if  these  are  points  unquestionably  revealed,  and 
supported  by  the  general  tenour  of  the  gospel, 
then  all  the  particular  phrases,  terms  and  epithets, 
used  in  respect  to  the  Son  of  God,  are  to  be  under- 
stood in  a  sense  which  is  consistent  with  these  lead- 
ing truths  of  the  gospel. 

There  are  several  texts  of  Scripture  which  have 
been  understood  as  supporting  the  idea  thut  the 
Son  of  God  is  absolutely  self-existent,  indepen- 
dent, and  immutable.  But  as  this  doctrine  is,  in 
my  view,  inconsistent  with  what  have  been  stated 
as  truths  supported  by  the  general  tenour  of  the 
gospel,  let  us  examine  those  texts,  and  see  whether 
they  do  necessarily  import  what  you  and  others  have 
imagined. 

John  x.  18.  ''I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and 
I  have  power  to  take  it  again.  This  command- 
ment have  I  received  of  my  Father." 

If,  in  any  instance,  ihe  Son  of  God  said  any 
thing  which  imported  that  he  had  independent 
pozcer^  this  is  the  instance — But  Christ  did  not  say 
"  I  have  independent  power,'''' — Besides,  it  is  be- 
lieved, that  in  this  case  the  word  po-^-er  is  the  same 
as  authority.  And  this  authority  or  this  command' 
ment  Christ  says  he  received  of  his  Father.  We 
may  add,  the  resurrection  of  Christ  from  the  dead 
is  abundantly  and  explicitly  attributed  to  God  in 
distinction  from  the  Son — "  God  raised  him  from 
the  dead," 

Micah  V.  2.  ''Whose  goings  forth  have  been 
from,  of  o/rf,  from  everlasting.'''' 

Whatevf-r  existed  before  the  world,  may  be  said 
to  be  of  old^  from  everlasting.     In  the  eighth  chap- 


224  ^n  Examination  of 

ter  of  Proverbs,  Wisdom,  or  Christ  under  the 
name  of  Wisdom,  is  repiesenled  as  using  lan- 
guage similar  lo  that  in  the  text  before  us — "  The 
Lord  possessed  me  in  ihe  beginning  of  his  way, 
before  his  works  of  old  i  1  was  set  np  from  ever- 
lasting, from  the  begimnrig,  or  wer  the  earth  was.'- 
But  Wisdom  adds,  ^'When  there  wf-re  no  depths, 
/  was  brought  forth''''  —  Before  the  hills,  was  I 
brought  forth — "  Then  I  was  by  him  as  one  brought 
up  zvith  him,  and  I  was  daily  his  delight" — Brought 
up  with  him  as  a  Son  with  a  Father ;  and  as  a  Son, 
was  drtily  his  deliuht.  The  Son  was  from  everlast- 
ing, as  he  was  brought  forth  before  there  were 
either  depths  or  hills. 

Rev.  i.  17.  '^  I  am  the  First  and  the  Last.'*^ 

Ill  the  forty- fourth  chapter  of  Isaiah,  the  Lord  of 
Hosts  adopts  this  title,  and  says,  "J  am  the  First, 
and  the  Last^  and  besides  me  ihere  is  no  God." 

In  view  of  these  texts,  Mr.  Jones  forms  this  ar» 
gumpnt — ''  There  is  no  God  besides  him  who  is 
the  First  and  the  Last;  but  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
First  and  the  Last  :  therefore,  besides  Jesus 
Christ  there  is  no  God."  If  this  be  fair  reasoning, 
we  may  draw  another  conclusion,  viz.  ''  The  God 
and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  is  not 
God.  Is  it  not  amazing,  that  Mr.  Jones  should 
reason  in  such  a  manner?  In  several  insianceg, 
his  conclusions  as  fully  exclude  the  Father  from 
b  ing  God,  as  it  is  possible  that  language  should 
doit. 

In  Isaiah,  God  did  not  say,  Besides  us  there  is 
no  God  ;  but,  "  Besides  me  there  is  no  God." 
His  words,  thererf)re,  as  fully  exclude  every  other 
Person  as  every  otfier  Being, 

When  Christ  said,  **•  I  am  the  First  and  the 
Last,"  he  immediately  added,  *'  1  aui  he  ibai  liveth, 


difficult  Passages  of  Scripture,  225 

and  ivas  dead.'''^  He  is  therefore  to  be  considered 
as  th^  First  and  the  Last  in  a  sense  which  is  con- 
sistent with  his  having  been  dead.  There  are  sev- 
eral senses  in  which  Christ  may  style  himself  "  the 
First  and  the  Last" — He  may  be  so  called  as  the 
eonstituted  Head  and  Chief  oi  creation;  and  as  in 
his  glory,  as  well  as  the  glory  of  the  Father,  all 
things  will  terminate — He  may  be  so  called,  as  the 
Author  and  Finisher  of  faith  ;  or  as  a  Son,  he  may 
bear  the  Divine  titles  of  his  Father. 

Heb-  xiii.  8.  "Jesus  Christ,  the  same  yester- 
day, and  to-day,  and  for  ever." 

This  text  on  which  so  much  reliance  has  been 
placed,  has  no  verb  in  it ;  and,  therelore,  consi- 
dered by  itself,  it  contains  no  affirmation.  For  the 
beginning  of  the  sentence,  and  the  sense  of  the 
text,  we  have  to  look  back  to  the  preceding  verse, 
**  Remember  them  who  have  the  rule  over  you, 
who  have  spoken  unto  you  the  word  of  God;  whose 
faith  follow,  considering  the  End  of  their  conver- 
sation, Jesus  Christ,  the  same  yesterday,  and  to- 
day, and  for  ever." 

It  is  evident,  that  it  is  as  the  End  of  Christian 
conversation  that  Christ  is  here  brought  into  view. 
And  by  Jesus  Christy  we  may  understand  not  mere- 
ly his  Person,  but  his  interest  and  glory.  This 
End  of  our  conversation  is  of  immutable  and  per- 
petual importance — the  same  yesterday,  to-day, 
and  for  ever. 

Heb.  i.  12.  "  But  thou  art  the  same,  and  thy 
years  shall  not  fail." 

This  text  was  quoted  from  Psa^lm  cii.  and  there 
was  used  in  an  address  to  Gad.  This  circum- 
stance is  worthy  of  note,  and  in  my  view,  is  the 
only  diffirtiUy  pre,«?f'nted  by  the  text.  Why  were 
words,  which  were  first  addressed  to  God,  quoted 


226  An  Examination  of 

and  applied  to  the  Son  ?  Perhaps  you  will  not 
find  me  able  to  answer  the  queslion;  but  if  so,  it 
will  not  hence  follow  that  it  is  unanswerable. 

In  the  5th  verse,  the  apostle  quoted  a  passage 
from  the  Old  Testameat,  and  applied  it  to  Christ, 
which  was  originally  usrd  in  respect  to  Solomon — 
*'  I  will  be  to  hira  a  Father,  and  he  shall  he  to  me 
a  Son."  These  words  are  to  be  found  three  times 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  each  time  they  are  con- 
tained in  a  gracious  promise  of  God  to  David 
respecting  his  son  Solomon.  Why  then  did  the 
apostle  quote  these  words  and  apply  them  to 
Christ,  as  though  ihey  had  been  originally  used  in 
respect  to  him  ?  The  answer  must  probably  be 
this,  that  Solomon  was  a  type  of  Christ.  May  we 
not  then  suppose,  that  the  words,  which  were  first 
addressed  to  God,  were  quoted  by  the  apostle  and 
applied  to  Christ  as  the  Son  and  *'  image  of  the  in- 
visible God?" 

Let  us  now  attend  to  the  import  of  the  text  : 
*'  But  thou  art  the  same,  and  thy  years  shall  not 
fail."  Here  we  have  exhibited  a  contrast  between 
the  material  world  and  its  constituted  Creator,  And 
what  is  the  contrast  ?  dne  waxes  old  and  is  liable 
to  perish,  and  the  other  will  remain  the  same  with- 
out end.  This,  it  is  conceived,  is  the  most  which 
can  be  supposed  to  be  necessarily  implied  in  the 
text.  And  what  is  here  affirmed  of  Christ,  agrees 
with  what  he  said  of  himself,  '^  I  am  the  First  and 
the  Last.  I  am  he  that  liveih  and  was  dead  ;  and, 
behold,  /  live  for  evermore,^"^ 

You  suppose  the  text  imports  absolute  immuta- 
bility. But,  sir,  was  it  no  change  in  the  Son  of 
God  to  pass  from  the  form  of  God  to  the  form  of  a 
servant?  Was  it  no  change  to  die,  and  to  be 
raised  again  from  the  dead  ?     Is  he  now,  at   the 


difficult  Passages  of  Scripture,  227 

Father's  right  hand,  in  all  respects  the  same 
that  he  was  when  he  cried  with  a  loud  voice, 
*'  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken 
me?" 

Permit  me,  sir,  to  ask,  whether  the  Greek  word 
ttvToi,  which  in  the  text  is  translated  sarne^  is  any 
where  in  the  New  Testament  used  as  importing 
absolute  iiiimulabilily,  unless  it  be  in  the  two 
texts  whici)  1  have  been  last  considering  ?  If 
the  clause  had  been  translated  "  But  thou  art 
He,"  meaning  he  with  peculiar  emphasis  and  dis- 
tinction, would  it  not  have  been  a  literal  and  cor- 
rect translation  ? 

But  let  the  translation  be  as  it  is,  only  let  the 
word  same  be  understood  in  a  sense  which  will  not 
contradict  the  gospel  of  Divine  Love. — It  is  my 
choice  to  believe  that  God  has  "  spared  not  his 
own  Son ;"  and  not  to  believe  that  he  made  a  mere 
show  of  so  loving  the  world,  when  he  did  not  in 
reality.  It  affords  me  far  greater  satisfaction  to 
believe  that  the  Son  of  God  was  capable  of  per- 
sonally rfomg  and  suffering  according  to  the  repre- 
sentations of  Srript'jre,  t^an  I  could  find  in  be- 
lieving that  there  is  a  want  of  strict  truth  and 
simplicity  in  the  gospel  representations  of  Di- 
vine Love. 


528  An  Examination  of 

LETTER  III. 

Other  texts  considered. 

REV.   SIR, 

Some  texts  on  which  Mr.  Will'am  Jones  has 
placed  great  reliance,  may  now  be  introduced. 

John  iii.  29.  '^  He  that  hath  the  Bride,  is  the 
Bridegroom." 

Isaiah  liv.  5.  ''  Thy  Mnker  is  thy  Husband,  the 
Lord  of  Hosts  is  his  nan.e." 

Mr.  Jones  says,  "  The  church,  which  is  the 
Bride,  can  no  more  have  two  Husbands,  than  Christ 
can  have  two  churches." 

Whatever  difficulty  may  be  involved  in  the  idea 
of  two  Hvshands  to  the  church,  the  difficulty  cannot 
be  diminished  by  supposing  'a  greater  number.  Yet 
Mr.  Jones's  theory  plainly  sup[)Oses  three  distinct 
Pertons^  or  agents^  each  of  whom  is  the  Husband 
of  the  church. 

The  truth  is,  that  there  is  in  no  other  sense  two 
Husbands  to  the  church,  than  thfre.are  two  Crea- 
tors, Saviours,  or  Lords,  As  God  creates  and 
saves  by  his  Son,  so  by  his  Son  he  shows  the  kind- 
ness of  a  Hupbatid  to  the  church.  The  Son  is  the 
constituted  Creator,  Saviour,  and  Lord;  so  he  is 
the  constituted  Head  ant!  Bridegroom  ol  the  church. 
AccordiDgly,  ''  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like 
unto  a  certain  King,  who  made  a  marriage  for  his 
Son." 

Rom.  ix.  5.  "  Whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of 
whom,  as  concerning  ihe  flesh,  Christ  came,  who 
is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever.     Amen." 

That  Christ  is,  in  this  text,  called  God,  will  not 
be  positively  denied.     But  if  he  be,  we  may  rea- 


difficult  Passages  of  Scripture,  229 

sonably  suppose  that  it  is  in  the  same  sense  that 
the  Father  calls  him  God,  in  his  address,  Heb.  i. 
8,  9 — that  is,  on  the  ground  of  a  constituted  charac' 
ler.  See  Part  II.  Letter  IV. — But  it  is  my  pre- 
vailing opinion,  that  the  latter  clause  of  this  text 
ought  to  be  understood  as  an  expression  of  grati- 
tude and  praise  to  God,  the  Father,  (or giving  his 
Son  to  come  in  the  flesh,  and  exalting  him  as  Lord 
over  all ;  and  that  the  verb  be  is  understood  in  the 
original,  and  should  be  supplied  in  the  translation, 
so  as  to  have  the  clause  read,  "  God  be  blessed  for 
ever.  Amen."  The  verb  6e,  you  know,  is  often 
understood  in  the  Greek,  and  often  supplied  in  the 
translation  ;*  and  it  is  so  several  times  between  the 
words  blessed  and  God,  By  comparing  the  Greek 
word  in  this  text,  with  other  texts  in  which  it  is 
translated  blessed,,  it  appears  to  me  clearly  to  xm- 
port  gr«/z7wc?e  and  praise;]  and  such  exclamations 
of  gratitude  and  praise  to  God,  are  common  in  the 
writings  of  the  apostle  Paul.  You  will  be  pleased 
to  examine  and  judge  for  yourself.  As  it  respects 
the  point  in  question,  it  is  to  me  a  matter  of  perfect 
indifferency  in  which  of  the  two  senses  the  text  is 
understood. 

2  Cor.  V.  19.  "God  was  in  Christ,  reconciling 
the  world  to  himself." 

Mr.  Jones  says,  "  were  there  no  other  passage  of 
Scripture  to  be  found,  this  alone  is  sufficient  to  over- 
throw the  whole  doctrine  oi  ArianismJ^'' — However 

*  See  Lukei.  68.  2  Cor.  viii.  16.--ix.  15.  Eph.  i.  2,  3.— iii. 
21.     Rom.  vi.  17. 

t  Was  not  our  word  eulogize,,  from  the  Greek  word,  in  this  text, 
which  is  translated  blessed  ?  And  if  it  were  common  to  speak  of 
eulogizing  God,  might  not  the  sense  of  the  text  be  thus  expressed, 
Whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom,  as  concerning  the  flesh,  Christ 
came,  who  is  over  all,  God  be  eulogized  for  ever.  Amen  ? 
20 


230  .^n  Examination  of 

true  this  observation  may  be  as  it  respects  Arian- 
ism,  the  text  will  be  found  perfectly  harmonious 
with  my  views.  God  is  evidently  spoken  of  as 
one  Person  only  ^  and  Christ  as  another  Person  c/«5- 
ttnct  horn  God.  "God  was  m  CAn\9<  reconciling 
the  world  to  himself."  Himself  is  a  proper  pro- 
noun for  one  Person  and  God  is  the  antecedent. 
This  one  Person  called  God,  was  in  another  Per- 
son called  Christ.  If  Christ  were  himself  God, 
and,  as  Mr.  Jones  affirms,  the  only  true  God,  let 
me  be  informed  what  God  was  in  Christ, 

In  remarking  on  this  very  text,  Mr.  Jones  says, 
"  the  word  God,  though  of  the  singular  number,  is 
of  plural  comprehension  ;  and  he  explains  himself 
to  mean  that  it  comprises  three  Persons.  The  im- 
port of  the  text  would  then  be,  that  three  Persons 
called  God,  were  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world 
to  himself.  It  may  be  asked,  ought  not  the  pro- 
noun to  be  themselves  ?  Besides,  if  by  God  be 
meant  three  Persons,  Christ  is  ?i  fourth  Person,  and 
not  one  of  the  three  included  in  the  name  God.  The 
same  would  be  true  of  the  phrase,  "  the  Son  of 
God." 

1  John  V.  20.  "And  we  are  in  him  that  is  true, 
even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true  God, 
and  eternal  life." 

With  great  confidence,  this  text  has  been  urged 
as  an  infallible  proof  that  Jesus  Christ  is  personal- 
ly the  true  and  self  existent  God.  But  let  us,  sir, 
examine  impartially,  and  take  the  connexion  into 
view — '•  And  we  know  that  we  are  of  God,  and  the 
whole  world  lieth  in  wickedness.  And  we  know  that 
the  Son  of  God  i?  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  un- 
derstanding that  we  may  know  him  that  is  true  ; 
and  we  are  in  him  that  is  true,  even  in  his  Son 


difficult  Passages  of  Scripture.  231 

Jesus  Christ.     This  is  the  true  God,  and  eternal 
life." 

Sometimes  the  sense  ofa  passage  is  rendered  ob- 
scure by  the  repetition  o{ pronouns  ;  and  it  is  ever 
safe  to  substitute  the  nouns  for  {he  pronouns.  Let 
us  do  so  in  regard  to  this  20th  verse.  The  apostle 
had  mentioned  God,  in  the  preceding  verse.  He 
"goes  on  to  say,  ''  And  we  know  that  the  Son  oI  God 
is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  understanding,  that 
we  may  know  God  that  is  true  ;  and  we  are  in  God 
that  is  true,  even  in  God's  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This 
is  the  TRUE  God,  and  eternal  life." 

Now,  it  may  be  asked,  which  of  the  two  is  called 
the  "  TRUE  God"  in  the  last  sentence,  he  that  is 
represented  as  the  truc  God  repeatedly  in  the 
preceding  part  of  the  verse,  or  the  Son  of  ihe  true 
God  who  had  come  to  give  us  an  understanding 
that  we  might  know  God  that  is  true  !  Unless  we 
are  to  believe  that  John  ineant  to  teach  us  that  there 
are  more  true  Gods  than  one,  we  must  suppose  the 
TRUE  God  in  the  last  sentence  is  the  same  Person 
as  the  TRUE  God  in  the  preceding  sentence,  of 
whom  Christ  was  the  Son. 

Christ,  in  his  prayer  to  the  Father,  whom  he  styl- 
ed the  ONLY  TRUE  GoD,  said,  "  1  \\?iV a  manifested 
thy  name  to  the  men  thou  gavest  me  out  of  the 
world."  This  perfectly  agrees  with  John's  ac- 
count, that  "  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath  given 
us  an  understandings  that  zve  may  know  Him  that  is 
trtie.^^  As  Christ  was  in  the  flesh  ;  as  the  only  truc 
God  was  in  Christ ;  and  as  the  business  of  the  Son 
was  to  give  us  an  understanding  of  him  that  is  true^ 
or  to  manifest  the  troe  God  ;  so  God  was  manifest- 
ed in  the  flesh.   [1  Tim.  iii,  16.] 

Isa.  viii.  13,  14.  ^'  Sanctify  ihe  Lord  of  Hosts 
himself  3  and  let  Him  be  your  fear,  and  let  Him  be 


232  Jin  Examination  of 

your  dread.  And  He  shall  be  for  a  Sanctuary  : 
but  for  a  stone  uf  stumbling  and  for  a  rock  oj  offence 
to  both  the  houses  of  Israel." 

1  Peter  ii.  7,  8.  ''  The  Stone  which  the  builders 
disallowed,  the  same  is  made  the  head  of  the  cor- 
ner, and  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  a  rock  of  offence,''^ 

From  these  two  texts,  compared,  Mr.  Jones 
draws  this  conclusion,  "Christ  is  the  Lord  of  Hosts 
himself." 

That  by  the  Lord  of  Hosts  is  here  meant  the  self- 
existent  God,  is  admitted.  It  is  also  admitted, 
that,  in  the  text  quoted  from  Peter,  Christ  is  called 
the  stone  of  stumbling  and  rock  oJ  offence.  Isaiah 
says  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  that  "  he  shall  be  for  a 
stone  of  stumbling,'^''  &LC,  But  how  shall  he  be  thus? 
By  some  act  of  his  providence^  or  some  manifestation 
of  himself.  The  event  proved  that  the  act  or  mani- 
festation predicted  was  that  of  sending  his  Son  in 
the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh.  As  God  thus  manifested 
himself  in  the  Person  of  his  So7i,  He  became  a  stone 
of  stumblings  that  is,  he  did  that  at  which  his  people 
stumbled.  And  at  the  same  time,  his  Son  was  a 
stumbling  block  or  stone  of  stumbling.  Accord-' 
ly,  by  the  same  prophet  God  said,  "  Behold  I  lay 
in  Zion  a  Stone,  a  tried  Stone,  a  precious  corner 
Stone."  [Isa.  xxviii.  16.]  This  text  is  also 
quoted  in  the  New  Testament,  and  applied  to 
Christ.  This  precious  corner  stone  was  a  stone  of 
stumbling  and  rock  of  offence  :  This  Stone  was  laid 
in  Zion  by  the  Lord  of  Hosts  Himself  ;  and  by 
this  ACT  of  HIS  providence,  he  became  a  stone  of 
stumbling  to  the  unbelieving  of  "  both  the  houses  of 
Israel." 

Psalm  Ixxviii.  56.  "  They  templed  and  provoked 
the  Most  High  God." 

1  Cor.  X.  9.  "  Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ,  as 
some  of  them  also  tempted,^^ 


difficult  Passages  of  Scripture,  233 

"  Therefore,"  says  Mr.  Jones,  "  Christ  is  the 
Most  High  God." 

Christ  said  to  his  disciples,  "  He  that  despiseth 
ME,  despiseth  him  that  sent  me."  On  the  same 
ground  we  may  say,  he  that  tempted  Christ,  or 
the  Angel  ofGocPs  Presence^  tempted  God.  But 
if  we  must  hence  infer,  that  God  and  Christ  are  the 
same  Person  or  Beings  what  will  be  the  inference 
from  these  words  of  Christ,  "  He  that  despiseth  you, 
despiseth  me?"  Must  we  not  infer,  that  Christ  and 
his  apostles  are  the  same  Person  or  Being? 

In  Rom.  X.  19 — 21,  we  read,  "  First,  Moses  saiih, 
I  will  provoke  you  to  jealousy  by  them  that  are  no 
people.  But  Esaias  is  very  bold  and  saith,  I  was 
found  of  them  tnat  sought  me  not.  But  to  Israel 
he  saith,  All  day  long  have  I  stretched  forth  my 
hands  to  a  disobedient  and  gainsaying  people." 
But  if  we  look  into  the  Old  Testament,  we  find  that 
all  these  things  were  said  by  Jehovah,  the  God  of 
Israel.  Moreover,  we  read,  "  As  for  Saul,  he 
made  havock  of  the  church,  entering  into  every 
house,  and  haling  men  and  women,  committed  them 
to  prison."  But  Christ  considered  this  as  perse- 
cuting himself;  and  said  to  him,  "Saul,  Saul,  why 
persecutest  thou  me  ?"  Now,  sir,  if  it  were  safe  to 
follow  Mr.  Jones  in  his  method  of  drawing  conclu- 
sions, it  might  be  inferred  that  Moses  and  Isaiah 
were  the  God  or  Israel,  yea,  "  the  Lord  of  Hosts 
himself,"  and  that  the  meridLndzuornen^  persecuted 
by  Saul,  were  Christ  himself. 

If  a  King  has  an  own  Son,  whom  he  delights  to 
honour,  and  wh:>  is  united  with  him  in  government, 
whatever  the  King  does  hy  his  Son,  may  be  proper- 
ly attributed  to  either  the  Father,  or  the  Son  :  And 
the  disrespect  shown  to  the  Son  may  be  considered 
20"^ 


234  An  Examination  of 

as  disrespect  to  both  the  Father  and  the  Son,  Had 
these  ideas  been  duly  considered  and  applied  by 
Mr.  Jones,  a  great  part  of  his  inferences  and  con- 
clusions would  probably  have  never  appeared  in 
print.  But  by  disregarding  such  analogies,  he 
compelled  the  Bible  to  speak  his  mind. 


LETTER  V. 

The  Son  of  God  not  the  same  Person  as  the  God  of 
Israel. 


REV.    SIR, 

Much  time  and  labour  have  been  expended,  and 
much  ingenuity  displayed,  in  attempts  to  prove  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  very  Person  who  is  called  the 
God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Israel,  in  the  Old 
Testament.  That  he  was  the  Angel  of  God,  and 
the  Medium  of  Divine  manifestations^  has  been  al- 
ready admitted  ;  but  that  the  Angel  of  God  and  the 
God  of  Israel  mean  the  same  Person,  is  not  admit- 
ted. For  the  phrase  the  Angel  of  God  as  clearly 
presents  to  the  mind  two  distinct  Beings^  one  of 
which  is  sent  by  the  other^  as  the  phrase  the  Mes- 
senger of  David,  Besides,  the  God  of  Israel  said 
respecting  this  Angel,  "  Beware  of  him,  provoke 
him  not,  for  he  will  not  pardon  your  transgressions  ; 
for  MY  name  is  in  him."  In  these  words,  the  God 
of  Israel  is,  in  the  most  decided  manner,  distin- 
guished from  the  Angel  of  his  Presence,  as  another 
Being  or  Agent. 

That  the  Son  of  God  is  not  the  same  Person  as 
the  God  of  Abraham,  or  the  God  of  Israel,  may  ap- 
pear from  the  following  consideratiojHs  : 


difficult  Passages  of  Scripture*  23ii 

1.  It  was  the  God  of  Israel  who  gave  the  promise 
of  the  Messiah.  He  never  promised  that  he  would 
be  the  Messiah  ;  but  the  Messiah  was  to  be  a  Son 
whom  the  God  of  Israel  was  to  raise  up, 

2.  The  title  given  to  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God, 
will  naturally  lead  us  to  the  same  conclusion.  It 
was  the  God  of  Israel  who  proclaimed  from  heaven 
respecting  the  Messiah,  '^  This  \s  my  beloved  SonP 
As  Christ  was  made  known  to  the  Jews  as  the  Son 
of  God,  would  they  not  naturally  be  led  to  conclude, 
that  if  he  were  the  Son  oiany  God,  he  was  the  Son 
of  the  God  of  Israel  j'  And  if  you,  sir,  suppose  that 
he  is  the  very  Person  who  was  called  the  God  of  Is- 
rael, please  to  inform  me  of  what  God  he  was  the 
Son.  Will  it  not  follow  inevitably  from  your  hy- 
pothesis, either  that  Christ  was  not  the  Son  of  God, 
or  that  the  God  of  Israel  was  the  Son  of  some 
OTHER  God  ? 

3.  We  have  the  most  decided  testimony,  both  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  that  the  Person  who  is  call- 
ed the  God  of  Abraham  and  the  God  of  Israel,  was 
the  Father  of  Christ.  In  John  viii.  54,  we  have 
the  testimony  of  Christ  himself — "  Jesus  answered, 
If  I  honour  myself  my  honour  is  nothing  ;  it  is  my 
Father  that  honoureth  me,  of  whom  ye  say  that  He 
is  YOUR  God."  What  God,  sir,  did  the  Jews  say 
was  their  God  ?  Was  it  not  the  God  cf  Israel  ?  If 
so,  then  the  God  of  Israel  was  the  Father  of  Christ. 
And  is  not  this  testimony  of  Christ  sufficient  to  over- 
balance all  the  arguments  on  your  side  of  the  ques- 
tion ?  And  unless  you  can  persuade  yourself,  that 
Christ  might  be  both  the  Father  and  the  Son  of  him- 
self, must  you  not  either  relinquish  your  hypothe- 
sis, or  call  in  question  his  veracity  ? 

Moreover,  from  this  portion  of  Christ's  testimo- 
ny, we  may  learn,  that  when  he  spake  of  God,  he 


236  An  Examination  of 

meant  his  Father  ;  and  when  he  spake  of  his  Fa- 
ther, he  meant  the  God  of  Israel.  Therefore, 
whenever  he  spake  of  God,  or  his  Father,  his  lan- 
guage implied  that  he  himself  wus  not  the  Person 
who  had  iDeen  called  the  God  of  Israel. 

Let  us  now  listen  to  the  language  of  Peter,  Acts 
iii.  13.  ''  I'he  God  of  Abraham,  and  of  Isaac,  and 
of  Jacob,  the  God  of  our  fathers,  hath  glorified  his 
Son  Jesys.''^  This  testimony  is  too  plain  to  need 
any  comment. 

Paul,  in  his  address  to  the  dispersed  Israelites, 
whom  he  found  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  said,  "  The 
God  of  this  people  of  Israel  chose  our  fathers,  and 
exalted  the  people  where  they  dwelt  as  s'rangrrs 
in  the  land  of  Egypt."  He  then  rehearsed  a  fium- 
ber  of  events  between  that  period  and  the  days  of 
David  ;  and  having  mentioned  David  as  a  man  '•  af- 
ter God's  own  heart,"  he  added,  "  Of  this  man's 
seed  hath  God,  according  to  his promise^RAisED  unto 
Israel  a  Saviour,  Jesus."     [Acts  xiii.  23.] 

In  the  fiist  verse  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
we  read  that  ''  God,  who  at  sundry  limes  and  in 
divers  manners  spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers, 
bi/  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  to  us 
BY  His  Son."  Was  it  not  the  God  of  Israel  who 
spake  by  the  prophets  ?  If  so,  Christ  was  the  Son  of 
the  God  of  Israel. 

In  support  (if  the  idea  now  before  us,  a  very  con- 
siderable part  of  the  New  Testament  might  be 
quoted  ;  for  at  the  very  foundation  of  the  gospel  this 
idea  is  laid,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  the  God 
of  Israel ;  and  this  idea  runs  through  the  writings 
of  the  evangelists,  and  the  sermons  and  epistles  of 
the  apostles.  The  matter  is  so  clearly  and  so  abun- 
dantly expressed,  that  it  is  amazing  that  any  one, 
acquainted  with  the  Scriptures,  should. ever  enter= 


difficult  Passages  of  Scripture,  237 

tain  the  idea  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  very  Per- 
son who  had  been  called  the  God  of  Israel. 

In  regard  to  the  texts  which  have  been  relied 
on  to  prove  that  Christ  is  the  very  Person  who 
was  called  the  God  of  Israel,  it  may  be  observed, 
that  the  most  of  them  would  be  easily  explained, 
and  the  argument  set  aside,  by  only  making  a  pro- 
per distinction  between  the  Angel  of  God  as  the 
Medium  of  Divine  manifestation,  and  the  God  who 
was  manifested  through  that  Medium  ;  or  by  only 
observing  that  whatever  God  does  by  Christ,  may 
be  properly  attributed  either  to  God  or  his  Son. 
Many  of  the  principal  texts  of  this  class  have  been 
already  examined  ;  and  it  is  hoped  enough  has 
been  said  to  convince  you,  that  the  hypothesis 
that  Christ  is  the  Person  who  is  called  the  God  op 
Israel,  is  without  any  solid  foundation  in  the  Bi- 
ble. But  the  circumstance,  that  this  hypothesis 
has  been  so  long  and  so  generally  admitted  by 
pious  Christians,  may  be  considered  as  evidence 
that  it  has  had  advocates  who  w^ere  esteemed  emi- 
nent for  piety  and  ability*  For  it  is  difficult  to 
conceive,  how  any  thing  short  of  distinguished  emi- 
nence  of  character  in  its  advocates  could  ever  have 
given  currency  and  popularity  to  an  opinion  so 
manifestly  repugnant  to  the  express  declarations  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  to  the  general  tenour 
of  the  gospel. 

If  you,  sir,  should  be  disposed  to  say,  that  you 
never  implicitly  denied  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of 
God,  let  me  ask,  Is  not  an  attempt  to  prove  that 
Christ  is  the  very  Person  who  is  called  the  God  of 
Israel,  an  implicit  deyiial  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God  ? 
Would  not  a  serious  attempt  to  prove  that  Isaac 
was  the  very  person  who  was  called  Abraham,  imply 
a  denial  that  Isaac  was  the  Son  of  Abraham  ? 


238  An  Examination  of 


POSTSCRIPT. 

No  one  thing  relating  to  this  subjrct  has  as- 
tonished me- more  than  the  attempts  oi  ministers  to 
prove  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  very  Person  called 
the  ^''  God  of  Israel. "^^  With  just  the  s^me  reason, 
and  show  of  argument,  you  might  attempt  to  pjove 
that  he  is  the  very  Person  called  "  God  the  Fa- 
ther,^^  Any  argument  by  which  you  attempt  to 
prove  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Person  called  the 
God  of  Israel  is  of  the  same  weight  to  prove  that 
he  is  God  the  Father.  This  circumstance,  if 
duly  considered,  may  give  you  reason  to  suspect 
thai  absurdity  or  sophistrij  is  implied  in  all  such  ar- 
guments. 

In  Isa.  xliii.  11,  the  Holy  ONE  says,  "lam 
the  Lord,  and  besides  me  there  is  no  Saviour  ;" 
and  as  Jesus  Christ  is  called  our  ''Lord  and 
Saviour.''  you  infer,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Holy  ONE  of  Israel,  who  said,  "  Beside  me 
there  is  no  Saviour."  This  is  one  of  your  strongest 
arguments. 

Now  all  you  here  wish  to  prove  is,  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  a  Person  in  the  one  God  ;  but  if  your  ar- 
gument proves  any  thing,  it  will  prove  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  God  and  Father  of  himself,  or  that 
God  the  Father  is  not  a  Saviour.  For  the  Holy 
ONE  did  not  say,  besides  us  there  is  no  Saviour, 
but  "  besides  me  there  is  no  Saviour."  Yet  we 
have  as  full  evidence  that  the  title  Saviour 
originally  belongs  to  God  the  Father,  as  we 
have  that  he  is  the  Supreme  B^ing,  or  the  "  God 
of  Israel." 

.  Besides,  in  your  argument,  a  principle  is  assum- 
ed by  which  we  can  as  fairly  prove  more  than  three 


difficult  Passages  of  Scripture*  239 

Persons  in  Deity  as  we  can  prove  that  Christ  is  a 
Person  of  the  one  God.  As  the  Holy  ONE  said, 
''  besides  me  there  is  no  Saviour,^''  you  assume  the 
principle,  that  each  Person  to  whom  the  Scriptures 
give  the  title  of  Saviour  must  be  a  Person  of  Deity  ; 
and  as  this  title  is  given  to  Christ,  you  infer  that  he 
is  the  living  God. 

But  in  2  Kings  xiii.  5,  we  read,  that  the  "  Lord 
gave  Israel  a  Saviour,'''^  You  will  not  pretend  that 
this  Saviour  was  either  the  Father,  the  Son,  or  the 
HoIj/  Spirit.  In  Neh.  ix.  27,  we  find  the  Jews  con- 
fessing that  when  their  forefathers  were  in  affliction, 
the  Lord  gave  '•  them  Saviours  who  saved  them  out 
of  the  hands  of  their  enemies."  Neither  the  number 
nor  the  names  of  these  Saviours  are  given  in  the 
connexion  ;  but  there  was  a  plurality/  of  them,  and 
we  may  probably  find  their  names  in  the  history  of 
the  Judges.  But  are  we  to  admit  that  Othniel 
Ehud,  Gideon,  &;c.  &ic.  are  Persons  of  Deity  ?  If 
not,  your  argument  fails. 

You  may  indeed  reply,  that  we  are  expressly  told 
that  these  were  Saviours  whom  the  Lord  gave  or 
raised  up.  This  is  true  ;  and  it  is  good  evidence 
that  these  persons  were  not  the  Deity  or  Persons 
in  the  one  God.  But  we  are  no  less  plainly  told, 
that  "God  raised  unto  Israel  a  Saviour  Jesus:'''* 
*'  Him  hath  God  exalted  with  his  own  right  hand  to 
be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour;^''  and  that  "the  Fa- 
ther sent  the  Son  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world." 

How  tnen  are  we  to  reconcile  the  idea  o^  di  plu- 
rality of  Saviours  with  the  declaration  of  the  high 
and  lofty  ONE,  "  besides  me  there  is  no  Saviour  ?" 
He  is  the  only  independent  Saviour,  He  saved  Is- 
rael by  raising  up  dependent  Saviours;  and  he 
saves  siiiners  by  sending  his  Sun  to  be  the  Saviour 
of  the  world. 


240  An  Examination  of 

Thus  fallacious,  and  thus  easily  answered,  are  all 
the  arguments  to  prove  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  vert/ 
Person  called  the  God  of  fsrael.  They  either  prove 
too  much,  or  they  prove  nothing. 


LETTER  VI. 

On  1  John  v.  7,  8. 

REV.   SIR, 

In  the  first  edition  of  my  letters  to  you,  I  admitted, 
as  genuine,  1  John  v.  7,  and  endeavoured  to  show 
that  it  contained  nothing  inconsistent  with  my  own 
views.  I  was  not  then  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  the 
genuineness  of  the  text  had  been  denied  ;  but  I  had 
not  seen  the  evidence  of  its  being  spurious.  Since 
that  time,  I  have  seen  evidence  which,  1  think, 
must  be  sutficient  to  satisfy  any  mind  which  is  free 
from  prepossessions.  To  admit  the  text,  and  re- 
mark upon  it  as  genuine, after  such  conviction, would 
be  little  better  than  to  countenance  forgery.  In- 
stead, therefore,  of  again  admitting  the  text,  I  shall 
exhibit  the  evidence  by  which  I  was  convinced  that 
it  was  an  unwarranted  interpolation.  As  the  evi- 
dence will  be  taken  from  a  Trinitarian  author,  it  is 
hoped  that  it  will  be  satisfactory  to  you  and  many 
others. 

The  writer  of  the  "  Eclectick  Review"  of  the 
"  Improved  Version,"  and  of  '•  Griesbach's  Greek 
Testament,"  decidedly  approves  of  the  omission  of 
the  text  in  those  works,  and  says,  "  It  is  found  in 
no  Greek  MS.  ancient  or  recent,  except  one  to 
which  we  shall  presently  advert ;  in  no  ancient  ver- 


difficult  Passages  of  Scripture,  241 

sion,  being  m/er^o/a/ec?  only  in  the  later  tr?inscripts 
of  the  Vulgate.  Not  one  of  the  Greek  fathers  re- 
cognises it,  though  many  of  (hem  collect  every  spe- 
cies and  shadow  of  argument  down  to  the  most  al- 
legorical and  shockingly  ridiculous,  in  favour  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  though  they  often  cite  the 
words  immediately  contiguous  both  before  and  af- 
ter;  and  though  with  immense  labour  and  art  they 
extract  from  the  next  words  the  very  sense  which 
this  passage  has,  in  following  times,  been  adduced 
to  furnish.  Of  the  Latin  fathers  rio/ o^ie  has  quoted 
it,  till  Eusebius  of  Lyons,  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
centary ;  and  in  his  works  there  is  much  reason  to 
believe  that  it  has  been  interpolated.  Under  these 
circumstances,  we  are  unspeakably  ashamed,  that 
any  modern  divines  should  have  contended  for  re- 
taining a  passage  so  indisputably  spurious." 

This,  sir,  is  the  decision  of  one  on  your  own  side 
of  the  question ;  and  one  who  has  given  evidence 
that  he  possesses  both  learning  and  candour.  In 
connexion  with  the  text  which  has  now  been  given 
up,  I  introduced  the  following  verse,  "  And  there 
are  three  that  bear  witness  in  earth,  the  spirit,  the 
water,  and  the  blood,  and  these  three  agree  in  one." 
Upon  this  text  I  made  some  observations  to  pre- 
pare the  way  for  a  right  understanding  of  the  pis- 
sage  contiined  in  the  apostles'  commission.  Bat 
as  considerable  was  then  said,  which  has  no  im- 
mediate connexion  with  the  main  subject  of  inqui- 
ry, I  shall  ht^re  give  only  the  leading  thoughts  as 
they  relate  to  the  institution  of  baptism. 

By  the  Spirit  is  understood   those  communica- 

tioas  of  (he  H  )ly  Spirit  which  have  been  given  for 

the   conjir. -nation  of  the  truths   of  the  gospel,  and 

the  promotion  of  the  Christian  religion.     By  the 

21 


242  An  Examination  of 

ivater  and  the  blood  which  bear  witness,  is  suppos= 
ed  to  be  meant  baptism  and  the  LordPs  supper^  as  in- 
stituted memorials  of  the  inauguration  d^n^  the  death 
of  the  Messiah. 

The  sabbath,  circumcision,  and  the  passover  were 
respectively  memorials    of    extraordinary    events. 
The  Lordh  day  is  kept  as  a  memorial  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  the  Lordh  supper  as 
an  instituted  memorial  of  his  death.     It  is,  there- 
fore, reasonable  to  suppose  that  baptism  is,  also,  an 
instituted   memorial   of  some    extraordinary  event. 
When  our  Saviour  was  baptized  by  John,  he  was 
inducted  into  office,  the  Spin7  descended  and  abode 
upon    him,    and  God    from    on   high   proclaimed, 
"  This  is   my   beloved  Son,  in  whom   I  am  well 
pleased."     No  event,  prior  to  this,  had  been  more 
worthy  of  a  perpetual  memorial.     But  of  this  event 
we  have  no  memorial  unless  it  be  that  of  Christian 
baptism.  Nor  is  there  any  event  but  this,  of  which 
baptism  can  naturally  be  supposed  the  memorial. 
Therefore,  as  by  analogy  we  are  led  to  believe  that 
baptism  is  a  memorial  of  some  interesting   event, 
and  as  no  other  event  can  be  so  naturally  supposed 
to  be  the  one,  it  is  believed  that  it  was  instituted 
as  the  memorial  of  the   Messiah's  induction  to  of- 
fice,  when  he  was  baptized  with  water,  endued  with 
the  Spirit,  and  announced  to  the  world  as  the  Son 
of  God,    It  was  on  this  occasion  that  "  God  anoint- 
ed Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost."     Ac- 
cordingly, in  instituting  the  memorial,  the  Goc?  who 
anointed,  the  Son  who  was  the  subject  of  the  anoint- 
ing, and  the  Holy  Spirit,  with  which  the  Father 
anointed  the  Son.  are  all  brought  to  view. 


difficult  Passages  of  Scripture,  243 

LETTER  Vir. 

The  Apostles''  commission  considered, 

REV.  SIR, 

The  language  ofthe  Apostles'  commission,  Matt. 
xxviii.  18,  19,  shall  now  be  considered. 

"  And  Jesus  came  and  spake  unto  them,  saying, 
All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth. 
Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

That  the  text,  as  it  stands  in  our  translation,  docs 
very  naturally  suggest  the  idea  of  baptizing  by  the 
authority  of  three  Persons,  is  admitted ;  and  of 
course  it  suggests  the  idea  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a 
Person.  But  when  this  view  ofthe  text  is  urged, 
as  the  only  possible  meaning,  there  is  perhaps  one 
thing  overlooked,  which  out  to  be  considered  ;  and 
some  things  taken  for  granted,  which  require /)roo/ 
that  is  not  easily  obtained. 

In  the  verse  already  quoted,  immediately  pre- 
ceding the  one  so  much  relied  on,  Christ  had  said, 
"  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  earth." 
And  what  is  here  asserted  appears  to  be  overlooked. 
It  was,  sir,  on  this  very  ground,  that  he  added, 
"  Go  ye,  therefore,  into  all  the  world,"  die.  Now, 
if  Christ  had  all  authority  in  heaven  and  earth,  his 
authority  must  have  been  sufficient  for  baptizing  in 
his  own  name,  without  connecting  any  other. — 
Nor  does  it  appear  very  natural  to  suppose  that 
Christ  would  say  to  this  effect,  I  have  all  authority ; 
go  ye,  therefore,  and  baptize  by  ihe joi^it  authority 
of  my  se// and  two  other  Persons,     And  has  it  not 


244  An  Examination  of 

been  also  too  much  overlooked,  that  we  have  no 
cxaniplf  lor  h.-iptizing  in  any  other  name  than  that 
of  the  Lord  Jesus?  If  it  be  a  matter  of  so  HiUch 
mon^ent  as  has  been  supposed,  that  baptism  should 
be  administered  in  the  name  of  three  Persons,  is  it 
not  sf^mewhat  extraordinary  that  we  are  not  able 
to  find  so  much  as  one  example  of  the  apostles  to 
support  the  practice  ? 

But  perhaps  somethings  are  taken  for  granted  as 
well  as  overlooked.  The  things  which  seem  to  have 
been  taken  for  granted,  that  require  proof,  are 
these — 

1.  That  the  preposition,  which  is  translated  in, 
does  not  mean  into,  to,  for,  or  unto- — 

2.  That  the  word  name,  unquestionably  means 
authority — 

3.  That  the  design  of  Christ,  in  the  passage,  wag 
to  show  the  authority  by  7vhich  baptism  is  to  be  ad- 
ministered, and  not  the  end  for  which  it  is  to  be 
administered. 

Respecting  the  Greek  preposition  f/jj  you  are 
doubtless  sensible  that  this  is  much  n)ore  frequent- 
ly translated  into,  to,  or  for,  than  it  is  in.  And  had 
either  of  those  words  b^^en  used  in  the  text  instead 
of  m,  this  would  have  entirely  precluded  the  idea 
of  baptizing  by  the  authority  of  three  Persons. 

And  the  woid  name  is  abundantly  used  in  the 
Scriptures,  as  of  the  same  import  as  the  word  cha- 
racter:  it  is  also  used  for  renown,  glory,  or  praise  ; 
and  it  is  sometimes  used  as  of  similar  import  with 
the  word  memorial.  In  one  or  other  of  these  senses 
the  word  is  used  oiuch  more  frequently  than  as  im- 
porting authority. 

It  is,  sir,  my  present  opinion  of  the  words  in  dis- 
pute, that  it  was  the  design  of  Christ  to  express  the 
#BJECT  or  END  for  which,  and  not  the  authority 


difi  cull   Passages  of  Scripture,  245 

5j/  which,  baptism  is  to  be  administered  ;  and  that 
the  preposition  would  be  more  properly  translated 
so  as  to  read  "  to  the  name,"  or  ''^  for  the  name," 
than  "  w  the  name." 

Some  reasons  or  analogies,  to  justify  this  explana- 
tion or  construction  of  the  text,  may  now  be  stated. 

1.  This  construction  agrees  with  the  character  oi 
the  Holy  Spirit,  as  already  illustrated  from  the  gene- 
ral and  natural  import  of  Scripture  language. 

2.  This  construction  corresponds  with  the  idea 
that  baptism  is  a  standing  witness  and  memorial  in 
the  church,  that  the  Son  of  God  came  by  water,  and 
was  publickly  inaucjurated,  endued,  and  announced, 
as  the  promised  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God. 

3.  It  agrees  with  the  frequent  use  of  the  word 
7iame,  as  signifying  renown,  glory,  praise,  or  me- 
morial. 

When  monuments  are  erected,  or  memorials  in- 
stituted, to  perpetuate  the  memory  of  illustrious 
characters,  or  illustrious  events,  renown,  glory,  and 
praise,  are  the  object  of  these  memorials.  When 
memorials  are  instituted  to  perpetuate  the  memory 
of  remarkable  and  distinguishing  events  of  Divine 
providence,  they  are  designed  for  the  renown,  glo- 
ry, and  praise  of  God. 

4.  When,  in  the  New  Testament,  any  thing  is 
said  to  be  done,  or  required  to  be  done,  for  a  wit- 
ness, for  a  sign,  for  a  testimony,  for  a  memorial,  or 
to  the  glory,  or  to  the  praise  of  God,  this  same  pre- 
position, 5'5,  is  used,  and  translated/or  or  to.  And 
can  one  instance  to  the  contrary  be  found  in  the 
New  Testament? 

Thus  sir,  you  have  before  you  some  of  the  analo- 
gies which  it  least  seem  to  justify  me  in  supposing, 
that  it  wa*  the  design  of  Christ,  in  the  apostles' 
commission,  to  express  the  end  for  zohich,  and  not 
21* 


246  Jn  Examination  of 

merely  the  authority  by  which,  baptism  is  to  be 
administered.  The  authority  by  which,  is  indeed 
expressed  in  the  introductory  words,  ''All  power 
is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  earth  ;  go  ye,  there- 
fore ;"  bui  the  clause  in  dispute  appears  to  me  not 
designed  to  re- express  the  authonty,  but  to  show  the 
END  for  which  baptism  was  instituted. 

Can  you,  sir,  produce  such  analogies  in  support 
of  the  common  construction  of  this  passage  ?  Can 
you  produce  one  analogy  from  the  Bible  which  will 
justify  you  in  saying  that  this  text  requires  u$  to 
baptize  by  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  dis- 
tinct Person  ? 

If  the  construction  now  given  of  the  passage 
should  be  admitted  and  adopted,  it  would  occasion 
no  change  in  the  form  of  words  to  be  used  in  baptiz- 
ing, but  simply  that  of  using  to,  ovfor^  or  unto,  in- 
stead of  in.  The  adoption  would,  however,  open  a 
door  for  much  to  be  pertinently  and  profitably  said, 
respecting  that  momentous  event  in  which  the  pro- 
mised Messiah  was  publickly  inaugurated,  endued^ 
and  announced  to  the  world  as  the  Son  or  God;  and 
the  grace  and  glory  which  was  displayed  on  that 
memorable  occasion. 

In  this  inauguration  we  may  contemplate  a  fulfil- 
ment of  what  had  been  promised  and  predicted,  and 
also  of  what  had  been  typified  in  the  manner  in 
which  prophets,  priests,  and  kings,  had  been  in- 
vested with  their  respective  offices.^  The  holy  oil 
was  poured  on  the  heads  of  prophets  and  kinj^s,  as 
an  emblem  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  with  which  the  Mes- 
siah was  to  be  endued.  Aaron  was  first  washed  with 
water,  and  then  had  the  oil  of  consecration  poured 
on  his  head,  as  the  Son  of  God  was  first  washed  or 
baptized,  and  then  endued  with  the  Spirit  of  God.  If 
we  may  connect*  in  one  view,  the  Old  and  the  Nevy 


difficult  Passages  of  Scripture,  247 

Testament  forms  o(  inauguration  or  ordination ;  in 
that  event  we  may  behold  the  Messiah  condescend- 
ing to  come  to  John,  his  herald,  to  be  washed  with 
water  as  Aaron  was;  then  we  behold  him  making 
his  own  ordination  prayer  ;  and  what  is  still  more 
august,  we  may  behold  the  Eternal  Father  per- 
forming the  solemn  rites  of  layihg  on  of  hands,  and 
giving  the  Right  Hand  of  Ftllowship — He  iirsl  sent 
down  his  Holy  Spirit,  which  is  often  represented  as 
his  Hand ^  this  abode  on  (he  Son;  then,  with  an 
audible  voice,  God  procbimed,  in  the  ears  of  at- 
tending angels  and  men,  "  This  is  my  beloved 
Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."  A  scene 
more  august,  and  more  expressive  of  grace  and 
glory,  had  perhaps  never  been  seen  in  heaven 
nor  earth. 

POSTSCRIPT. 

Let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  that  the  opinion, 
that  baptism  was  mstituted  as  a  memorial  of  the  m- 
auguration  of  the  Messiah,  is  not  viewed  by  me  as 
essential  to  the  main  theory  respectmg  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  The  opinion  resulted  from 
a  serious  inquiry  into  the  meaning  of  Christ'^s  com- 
ing  by  water,  and  of  the  water'' s  bearing  witness,  Jt 
is  proposed,  for  examination,  as  that  which  appears 
to  me  probably  true.  But  the  main  things  had  in 
view  do  not  depend  on  the  correctness  of  that  opin- 
ion. Various  reasons  may  be  given  for  the  use  of 
the  terms- Holy  Spirit,  in  the  apostles'  commission 
which  do  not  imply  the  personality  of  the  Spirit. 
But  what,  sir,  if  no  such  reason  could  be  given  by 
me,  or  by  yourself?  Shall  one  clause  of  a  text,  of 
doubtful  import,  be  admitted  as  proof  of  a  fact,  in 
opposition  to  the  general  tenqur  of  plain  and  inspired 


248  An  Examination  of 

representations  ?  More,  it  is  believed,  than  iwo 
hundred  times,  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  is  brought 
into  view  in  the  Scriptures,  in  a  manner  which 
clearly  conveys  the  idea,  that,  by  the  Spirit,  a  self- 
existent  Person  is  not  intended.  And  shall  one,  two 
or  three  texts,  which  seem  lo  favour  your  opinion, 
be  allowed  more  weight  than  two  hundred  others 
which  are  clearly  in  opposition  ?  Suppose,  sir,  that 
after  long  and  laborious  inquiry,  I  could  obtain  no 
satisfacJory  exposition  of  the  disputed  clause  in  (he 
apostles'  comn)ission,  which  would  accord  with 
my  present  views  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  on  that 
ground  should  give  up  the  whole  theory,  and  return 
to  </OMr  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ;  what  then  would 
be  my  situation  1  I  must  cease  to  reflect,  or  must 
take  into  view  the  numerous  texts  which  naturally 
appose  your  idea  of  the  Spirit,  with  the  multitude 
which  are  opposed  to  the  self  existence  of  the  Son 
of  God,  and  the  many  thousands  which  distinctly 
represent  God  as  one  Person  only.  On  the  whole, 
then,  instead  of  one  perplexing  text,  I  should  have 
to  encounter  many  thousands,  each  of  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  natural  import  of  language,  would 
be  opposed  to  the  doctrine  that  I  should  profess  to 
believe.  If  you  will  show  me  how  those  numerous 
elasses  of  texts  can  be  fairly  reconciled  to  your 
doctrine,  and  how  the  representations  of  Divine 
LOVE  in  the  gospel  can  be  consistent  with  your 
views  of  the  Son  of  God,  you  wdl  easily  reclaitn 
me  from  my  supposed  errour.  For  whatever  may 
have  been  your  views  of  my  feelings  or  my  motives, 
this  is  a  fact,  that  it  is  far  from  being  a  pleasant 
thing  to  me  to  be  obliged  to  dissent  in  opinion  from 
fuch  a  multitude  of  worthy  characters. 

There  is  one  consideration  wh'ch  will  probably 
have  influence  against  the  admission  of  the  senti- 


difficult  Passages  of  Scripture.  249 

ments  of  these  Leltors,  viz.  That  the  writer  is  a 
person  ohscurtly  situated,  of  private  education,  and 
unpronii sing  advantages.  All  this  may,  in  truth,  be 
said.  But  sornelimes  God  has  *'  chosen"  weakawdi 
unpromising  instruments  to  carry  on  his  work,  ''  that 
•no  flesh  should  glory  m  his  presence.'''^  Besides,  if 
*'  the  Scriptures  were  inspired  to  instruct  common 
readers,  by  using  words  according  to  ihe.'ir  common 
acceptation,^^  it  is  possible  that  a  person,  under  all 
my  disadvantages,  niay  ifkvesligate  the  truth,  by 
making  the  Scriptures  his  only  guide.  It  has  been 
no  part  of  my  object  to  invent  a  new  theory.  My 
aim  has  been  to  investigate,  represent,  and  sup- 
port, such  sentiments  as  are  revealed  in  the  Bible, 
admitting  words  to  be  used  '■'  according  tc  their 
common  acceptation,"  comparing  Scripture  with 
Scripture.  !f,  on  due  examination,  it  shall  be  found 
that  any  sentiment,  in  these  Letterr,,  may  be  pro- 
perly ascribed  to  me  as  the  author,  let  it  be  reject- 
ed. But  you  will  allowj  that  sentir^ents,  of  which 
God  is  the^Author,  should  not  be  rejected,  who- 
ever may  be  the  writer.  "  Can  there  any  good 
thing  come  out  of  Nazareth?"  This,  you  will  re- 
member, was  a  question  which  once  arose  in  the 
mind  of  an  "  Israelite  indeed  ;"  and,  perhaps,  on 
the  same  ground,  thousands  of  others,  to  their  own 
ruin,  rejected  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  Om  no 
better  ground,  it  may  be,  that  thousands  will  re- 
ject the  SENTIMENTS  Contained  in  these  Letters, 
even  if  they  are  sanctioned  by  the  oracles  of 
God. 


250  Conclusion- 

LETTER  VIII. 

Conclusion, 

REV.  SIR, 

This  series  of  Letters  has  already  been  extended 
beyond  my  original  design.  It  shall  now  be  closed. 
I  am  not  insensible,  that  publishing  my  views  ex- 
poses me  to  attacks  from  every  denomination  of 
professing  Christians.  Yet  no  man  can  have  less 
desire  to  be  engaged  in  publick  controversy.  But 
being  not  my  own,  it  would  be  wrong  to  suppress 
what  to  me  appears  honorary  to  Christ,  for  the  sake 
of  private  ease^  quiet,  or  popularity/. 

Freedom  has  been  used  in  examining  your  opin- 
ions, and  the  opinions  of  others ;  but,  at  the  same 
time,  it  has  been  an  object  of  my  care  to  cultivate, 
in  my  heart,  feelings  or  tenderness  and  respect  for 
my  fellow  Christians  of  different  opinions.  In  writ- 
ing it  has  been  my  aim  not  to  wound  your  feelings, 
or  the  feelings  of  any  other  man.  While  writing 
this  last  Letter  of  the  series,  my  conscience  bears 
me  witness,  that  not  one  sentence  in  the  whole  has 
been  dictated  by  the  feelings  of  displeasure  against 
any  one  of  my  fellow  crea'ures. 

These  Letters  are  addressed  to  you,  in  hope, 
that,  if  there  must  be  an  opponent,  it  may  be  one 
who  is  able  d^nd  willing  io  investigate  ;  and  one  who 
has  learned  of  Him  who  was  meek  and  lowly  in 
heart.  This  being  your  character,  should  you  see 
cause  to  answer  my  letters,  you  will  look  thorough- 
ly and  prayerfully/  into  the  subject,  and  not  write 
at  random.     You  will  not  shelter  yourself  under  the 


Conclusioiu  251 

popularity  of  your  own  theory,  and  on  that  ground 
think  youTseM justified \n  treating  with  contempliht 
views  of  your  friend. — You  will  not  sneer  at  argu- 
ments which  you  cannot  refute  hy  fair  reasoning  ; 
nor  substitute  sarcastick  and  censorious  declama- 
tion, for  argument.  You  will  not  misrepresent  my 
real  viezvs,  for  the  sake  of  having  something  before 
you  which  you  can  easily  refute.  But  if  you  view 
me  in  an  errour,  you  will  pity  and  pray  forme  ;  and, 
in  the  spirit  of  meekness  and  love,  you  will  endea- 
vour to  show  me  my  mistakes  and  errours.  And 
you  will  write  as  one  who  expects  to  give  account. 
And  if  I  am  in  an  errour,  be  assured,  sir,  that  it  is 
my  cordial  desire  that  you  may  be  enabled  to  detect 
it,  and  to  set  it  before  me,  and  before  the  world, 
in  a  convincing  light. 

You  will  readily  perceive,  that  there  may  be  mis- 
lakes  in  explaining  some  particular  texts,  and  yet 
the  theory  may  be  correct.  In  attempting  to  ex- 
plain so  many  texts,  it  is  very  possible  that  there 
are  instances  of  incorrectness.  For  one  so  falli- 
ble, it  is  enough  to  say,  that  my  labour  has  been  to 
investigate  the  real  truth,  without  perverting  or 
misapplying  the  Scriptures  ;  and  that  it  has  been 
my  sincere  desire  to  make  the  theory  square  with 
the  Scriptures  as  a  Divine  Standard,  and  not  to 
make  the  Scriptures  bend  to  the  theory. 

Should  you  think  it  to 'be  your  duty  to  express 
your  disapprobation  of  the  theory,  by  way  of  a  Re- 
view in  some  periodical  work,  you  will  give  an 
impartial  representation  of  my  real  sentiments,  that 
those  who  read  the  Review  may  have  some  oppor- 
tunity to  judge  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  opinion 
you  may  express. 

After  you  shall  have  written  your  objections  by 
way  of  Review,  be  pleased  to  turn  to  John  xvii. 


252  Concltfsion, 

^r)d  reviezu  the  prn^tr  u.  ih;-  Son  of  God ;  exnmine 
the  natural  import  of  every  scfjlt  uce  cii-ucil)  ; 
then  ask  yourself  these  questioii«i — Doe*  not  every 
sentence  m  tliis  ^v^yev  perfectly  harmonize  wiih  ihe 
sentiments  against  whuh  I  have  been  writing? — 
Yea,  (joes  not  tliis  pmyev  clearly  contain  the  prin- 
cipal sentiments  which  the  writer  ot  the  Letters  has 
aimed  to  esiablish? — If  he  hdid  forged  a  prayer  for 
the  Son  of  Goi],  in  support  of  his  own  theory,  could 
he  have  written  any  thing  more  to  his  purpose  than 
that  which  really  proceeded  fr(»m  the  hps  of  Christ? 
— Are  not,  then,  my  objections  to  his  views  as  really 
objections  to  the  sentiments  contained  in  the  prayer 
of  the  Son  of  God  ? 

And  may  that  Divine  Lord,  in  whom  is  our  hope, 
lead  us  to  a  more  perfect  knowledge  of  himself ; 
and  grant,  that  not  only  you  and  I,  but  all  who  may 
read  these  Letters,  may  experience  the  truth  of  the 
declaration  which  he  made  in  his  prayer  to  the 
Father,  ''And  this  is  life  eternal,  to  know  thee 
the  ONLY  TRUE  GoD,  arid  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou 
hast  SENT."  And  while  it  shall  be  our  lot  to  differ 
in  sentiment,  let  us  daily  unite  in  the  prayer  of 
Christ,  that  we  all  may  be  one,  even  as  He  and  the 
Father  are  one. 
Adieu. 

NOAH  WORCESTER, 


RESPECTFUL  ADDRESS 


TmMTOAmiACT  <s^®m<e.T» 


RELATING    TO 


THEIR  MANNER  OF  TREATING  OPPONENTS, 


BY  NOAH  "WORCESTER,  D.  D. 


But  why  dost  thou  judge  thy  brother  ?  or  why  dost  thou  set  at 
Baught  thy  brother?  For  we  must  all  stand  before  the  judgment 
seat  of  Christ.  Saint  Paul. 

I'here  is  one  Lawgiver,  who  is  able  to  save  and  to  destroy  ;  who 
art  thou  that  judgest  another  ?  Saint  James, 

Judge  not  that  ye  be  not  judged.  For  with  what  judgment  ye 
judge,  ye  shall  be  judged  ;  and  with  what  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall 
ha  measured  to  you  again.  j£S(JS  Christ. 


BOSTON : 

PRINTED    AND    PUBLISHED    BY    THOMAS    B,    >VAIT. 
1825. 


ADDRESS. 


REV.  FATHERS  AND  BRETHREN, 

In  writing  the  "  Series  of  Letters"  to  one  of  your 
number,  it  was  my  aim  to  treat  you  with  candour 
and  respect.  Although  I  had  seen  reason  to  dis- 
sent from  you  in  opinion,  my  feelings  and  affections 
were  not  alienated.  I  felt  no  inclination  to  revile 
or  degrade  any  class  of  men  ;  nor  to  do  any  thing 
to  cause  a  schism  among  the  friends  of  Christ. 
Feeling  bound  by  the  command  of  our  common 
Lord  "to  call  no  man  Master'''^  in  matters  of  faith, 
1  was  led  to  examine  the  correctness  of  some  po- 
pular opinions  by  the  light  of  revelation.  The  re- 
sult of  which  inquiry  was,  a  full  conviction  that 
some  opinions  had  passed  for  essential  doctrines 
which  had  not  so  much  as  once  been  named  either 
by  Christ  or  his  Apostles;  and,  indeed,  that  Christ 
and  his  Apostles  had  taught  doctrines  directly  op- 
posed to  those  popular  opinions.  With  this  con- 
viction I  wrote,  hoping  to  occasion  a  more  thorough 
inquiry. 

Before  I  was  prepared  to  publish,  information 
was  circulated  that  I  was  writing;  and  very  incor- 
rect representations  of  my  views  were  rapidly 
spreading.  No  way  appeared  for  me  to  put  a  stop 
to  these  reports  but  by  publishing  what  I  believed 
to  be  true.     Knowing  ihd^i  fallibility  was  attached 


to  all  human  productions,  and  knowing  by  experi- 
ence my  own  liability  to  err,  I  had  no  expectation 
that  every  thing  I  had  written  would  be  found  cor- 
rect. But  I  was  willing  to  exhibit  my  own  views, 
in  hope,  by  that  means,  I  might  have  the  aid  of 
others  to  discover  my  mistakes, 

I  was  aware  that,  in  publishing,  I  should  bring 
on  myself  the  displeasure  of  those  Ministers  who 
were  opposed  to  any  inquiry  into  the  truth  of  some 
popular  opinions  ;  but  it  was  my  hope  that  the  num- 
ber of  this  class  was  so  sinall  that  1  might  publish, 
in  a  respectful  manner,  the  fruits  of  honest  inquiry, 
without  greatly  endangering  my  life ;  or,  what  is 
still  dearer,  my  character  as  a  disciple  and  min- 
ister of  Christ.  Conscious  that  1  had  no  disposition 
to  injure  any  one  of  my  fellow  creatures,  I  enter- 
tained a  hope,  that  but  few  would  be  found  dispos- 
ed to  ruin  my  character,  merely  for  the  attempt  to 
offer  light  on  an  important  subject. 

Whether  I  have  been  disappointed  in  the  event, 
1  have  no  occasion  to  state.  The  treatment!  have 
received,  and  the  measures  which  have  been  adopt- 
ed by  some  persons,  it  would  be  too  painful  for  me 
to  relate.  Sensible  of  the  danger  I  may  be  in  of 
rendering  evil  for  evil,  I  shall  forbear  to  enter  into 
many  particulars.  Some  things  of  a  move  general 
nature  it  may  be  useful  to  notice.  But  as  there 
was  not,  prior  to  my  publishing,  any  animosity 
between  any  one  of  my  brethren  and  myself  which 
might  account  for  the  improper  treatment  I  have 
received,  I  am  willing  to  believe  that  those  who 
have  conducted  improperly  have  thought  they  were 
doing  God  service.  Paul  once  verily  thought  he 
ought  to  do  many  things  against  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
which  things  he  did  ;  so  it  is  believed  that  some  of 
my  brethren  have  verily  thought  they  ought  to  do 


many  things  against  me.  But  in  the  example  of 
Paul  we  have  evidence,  thai  a  man  may  think  fie  is 
doing  right  while  he  is  destroying  the  real  friends  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Therefore,  admitting,  that  my  breth- 
ren have  thought  they  were  doing  God  service,  it 
may  still  he  proper  to  examine  respecting  the  cor- 
rectness of  that  opinion.  For  in  no  case  are  we 
more  liable  to  err,  than  in  judging  of  the  nature  of 
our  own  conduct  towards  such  as  oppose  our 
opinions. 

Permit  me,  then,  my  fathers  and  brethren,  to  aslf, 
has  it  not  been  common  among  Ministers  to  repre- 
sent me  as  an  Arian^  or  a  Socinian  ?  These  terms 
you  know  have  become  terms  of  reproach.  What 
have  been  the  motives  in  applying  them  to  me? 
Every  person  acquainted  with  my  views,  and  the 
views  of  Arius  and  Socinus,  knows  that  1  am 
neither  an  Arian  nor  a  Socinian.  And  those  who 
are  not  acquainted  with  my  views,  have  no  right  to 
pretend  that  they  are,  and  to  stigmatize  me  for  they 
know  not  what.  Has  not  then  a  disposition  to  re- 
proach been  at  the  bottom  of  such  representations  ? 

It  is  well  known  that  some  have  said,  that  they 
see  no  difference  between  my  views  and  the  views 
of  Arius.  If  the  affirmation  be  true,  it  is  also  true, 
that  they  can  conceive  of  no  difference  between  a 
Son  from  \.\\e  uncreated  essence  of  Deity  and  a  Son 
created  out  of  nothing*  For  this  is  the  precise  dis- 
titiction  between  my  views  and  the  views  of  Arius. 
Whether  I  am  in  an  errour,  or  not,  is  not  now  the 
question  ;  but  whether  my  brethren  have  conducted 
uprightly  in  their  representations  of  my  sentiment. 
Is  It  not  a  fact  that  some  persons  who  have  said 
that  they  can  perceive  no  distinction  in  the  two 
ca?es,  have  also  objected  to  my  view^  on  the  same 
ground  that  Arius  objected  to  the  sentiments  of  his 
22^ 


6 

opponents — viz.  That  they  implied  that  God  is 
'•  mutable,  divisible,"  &;c.  Do  these  objectors 
suppose  that  for  God  to  create  a  Son  out  of  nothing, 
would  imply  that  he  is  "  7/tw^a6/e  and  divisible?''^ 
If  not,  is  it  not  a  fact  that  these  objectors  have 
proved  that  they  do  see  a  distinction,  even  while 
they  affirm,  that  they  do  not  P 

Some  will  probably  plead,  that  they  have  called 
me  an  Arian,  or  a  Socinian,  because  they  viewed 
my  sentiments  as  no  better  than  Arianism  or  Soci- 
nianism.  But  is  this  either  honest  or  safe  ground 
to  lake  ?  Are  you  willing  to  have  others  treat  you 
in  the  same  manner?  With  sincerity  I  can  say, 
that  I  consider  your  theory  to  be  as  dishonorary 
both  to  God  and  Jesus  Christ  as  Arianism  or  So- 
cinianism.  May  I  then  lawfully,  or  honestly,  re- 
port that  you  are  an  Arian,  or  Socinian?  May  I 
safely  report  my  inferences,  or  deductions,  from  your 
theory  as  your  real  sentiments  ?  No,  my  brethren, 
such  conduct  in  me  would  be  but  one  remove  from 
positive  falsehood.  For  I  may  be  in  an  errour  in 
my  deductions  from  your  hypothesis  ;  and  if  I  am, 
you  do  not  believe  in  the  sentiment  I  deduce.  My 
duty,  then,  is  to  state  fairly  what  you  profess  to  be- 
lieve,  when  I  pretend  to  state  your  sentiments  ;  and 
not  defame  you  by  substituting  my  inferences  for 
your  sentiments.  Let  us,  then,  in  our  representa- 
tions, regard  the  golden  rule,  and  prove  that  we 
are  *'  children  that  will  not  lie." 

Has  not  this  method,  also,  been  adopted  to  pre- 
possess the  minds  of  people,  viz.  To  represent  that 
Arians  and  Socinians  were  generally  pleased  with 
what  I  have  published,  while  "  pious  Trinitarians" 
were  generally  grieved  and  dissatisfied  ?  How  far 
this  objection  is  founded  in  fact,  I  am  unable  to  say  , 
hut  admitting  the  facts  to  be  as  stated,  what  evf- 


dence  do  they  afford  against  the  truth  of  my  spnti- 
mcnts  ?     Are  Trinitarians  ihe  standard  ot  correct 
thinking?     Is  it  not  a  f<irt   that  the  most  ot   them 
have  been  grieved  or  offended,  prior  to  reading  for 
themselves;  and  without  any  correct  knowledge  of 
what  1  had  written  ?  May  it  not  be,  that  those  who 
have  been  called  Arians  and  Socinians  were  more 
willing  to  examine  for  themselves,  and  less  cjivpos- 
ed  to  censure  a  performance  by  wholesale  ?     Have 
not  many  Trinitarians  been  deterred  from  reading 
by  this  very  report,  that  Ariansand  Socinians  were 
pleased  ?     Is  any  man's  judgment  worthy  of  regard 
in  this  case,  who  might  be  so  prepossessed  by  such 
a  report  as  to  refuse  to  examine  for  himself?  I  had 
indeed  no  wish  to  grieve  any  pious  Trinitarian,  nor 
any  other  pious  marj;  and    I  carefully  studied   to 
avoid  every  occasion  of  offence  ;  but  I  am  not  to  be 
influenced  to  renounce  my  sentiments,  by  [he  grief 
of  men  who  will  censure  me  without  examination. 
Nor  does  it  terrify  me  to  be  told  that  Arians   and 
Socinians  are   pleased,     ll  I  am  right,  I  hope  they 
will  a  I  adopt  my  views.   If  wrong,  I  hope  they  will 
be  able  to  show  me  my  errours.     Their  being  less 
afraid  to  read  and  examine  than  Trinitarians  are, 
is  certainly  a  circumstance  in  their  favour.     But  if 
they  are  pleased,   it   is  not  because  they  consider 
my  sentiments  in  agreement  with  those  of  Arius  of 
Socinus.     Some   of  them  may  be  pleased  merely 
because  they  consider  my  arguments  as  conclusive 
against  the   doctrine  that  God  is  three  persons;  a 
doctrine  which  they  consider  as  an  enormous   er» 
rour.     Others  may  have  been  pleased  because  they 
thought  my  sentiments  in  the  highest  degree  hono- 
rary to  the   Saviour  of  the  World.     This  I  have 
abundant  reason  to  suppose  was  the  case  with  the 


a 

iate  Doctor  Eckley,  whose  piety  anJ  candour  could 
not  secure  him  from  reproach.* 

Excepting  such  things  as  have  already  been  men- 
tioned, most  of  ihe  objections  ''o  my  views  which 
have  come  to  n.y  knowiedge,  huve  been  brought 
from  the  regions  of  hypothetical  philosophy.  This 
1  do  not  mention  as  a  despiser  ol  philosophy.  But 
writers  and  preachers  on  your  side  of  the  question 
have  been  in  the  habit  of  treating  all  philosophical 

*  Extracts  from  Dr.  Eckle.y's  letter  to  my  brother  of  Salisbury.' 

''  My  plan,  when  I  saw  you,  as  I  think  I  intimated,  respecting 
the  Son  of  God,  was  very  similar  to  what  your  brother  has  now 
adopted.  The  common  plan  of  three  self-existent  persons  forming 
one  Essence  or  infinite  Being.,  and  one  of  these  persons  being  united 
to  a  man.,  but  not  in  the  least  humbling  liimself  or  suffering,  com- 
pletely leads  to  and  ends  in  Socinianism  ;  and  though  it  claims  the 
form  of  orthodoxy.,  it  js  as  a  shadoio  without  the  substance  ;  it  eludes 
inspection;  and  1  sometimes  saj  to  these  who  are  strenuous  for 
this  doctrine,  that  they  take  away  my  Lord  and  1  know  not 
where  they  place  him." — "■  The  orthodoxy.,  so  called,  of  Water- 
land.,  is  as  repugnant  to  my  reason  and  views  of  religion,  as  the 
heierodoxy  of  Lardner  ;  and  I  am  at  a  loss  to  see  that  any  solid 
satisfaction,  for  a  person  who  wishes  to  find  salvati'-n  through  the 
death  of  the  Son  of  God,  can  be  found  in  either.'*' — *^  I  seek  for  a 
plan  which  exalts  the  personal  character  and  attributes  of  the  ^oif 
OF  God  in  ihe  highest  possible  degree.  The  plan  which  your  bro- 
ther bath  chosen  does  this — The  scheme  he  has  adopted  affords  light 
and  comfort  to  the  christian.  1  have  long  thought  so  ;  and  I  con- 
tinue to  think  I  have  not  been  mistaken." 

In  a  letter  to  myself  the  Doctor  wrote  thus — "  What  you  have 
admirably  well  said,  sir,  respecting  the  likeness  of  a  Son  to  his 
Father.,  and  of  the  Son  of  God's  possessing  the  same  nature  (of 
consequeru-e  divine)  with  the  Father,  resulting  from  the  fact  of  his 
hcing  his  begotten  and  own  Son.,  is  sufficient  in  my  mind  as  the 
ground  or  reason  of  his  exaltation  to  the  high  rank  you  conceive 
him  to  hold  in  the  system  ;  God  if  God.,  Light  of  Light  ~Xo  whom 
the  Father  hath  given  to  have  life  in  himself — to  whom  he  may 
make  all  possible  communications  as  to  his  own  5'on-  may  give  to 
him  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth,  putting  all  things  under  him,  but 
Himself— "Se-Ai  him  at  his  own  right  hand  on  the  throne,  and  com-' 
jnand  all  men  to  honour  him  as  the  Angeh  do  in  heaven." 

Tkus  the  good  man,  ''  being  dead,  yet  speaketh." 


objections,  against  the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in 
one  God,  as  abominable^  if  not  absolutely  profane. 
They  have  been  treated  as  evidence  that  the  ob- 
jectors preferred  their  own  reasoning,  to  the  Ora- 
cles of  God.  But  no  sooner  had  my  views  appear- 
ed before  the  publick.  than  multitudes  resorted  to 
this  very  mode  of  objecting,  which  had  before  been 
denounced  as  so  abominable.  This  proceeding 
must  appear  the  more  extraordinary  when  a  con- 
trast of  circumstances  in  the  two  cases  shall  be 
duly  considered. 

The  doctrine,  that  God  is  three  persons,  was 
never  proclaimed  by  a  miraculous  voice  from  Hea- 
ven ;  it  was  never  taught  by  Je^us  Christ,  nor  either 
of  his  Apostles  in  any  sermon  recorded  in  the  Bible. 
The  doctrine  is  not  so  much  as  once  affirmed  in  all 
the  Oracles  of  God.  It  is  stated  by  man  in  a  mys- 
tical form  of  words  unknown  to  any  inspired  writer  ; 
and  its  whole  support  depends  on  inferences  from 
an  artful  comparison  of  different  portions  of  scrip- 
ture. Yet  against  this  form  ofwords^  of  mere  hu- 
man invention,  and  which  conveys  no  intelligible 
meaning  to  yourselves,  or  any  other  being,  you 
have  considered  it  as  wicked  to  state  any  objectioQ 
from  philosophy,  metaphysicks,  or  even  mathema- 
ticks.  And  all  such  objections  have  been  derided 
as  evidence  of  nothing  less  than  the  infidelity  and 
wickedness  of  the  hearts  of  those  who  have  pro- 
posed them. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  sentiment  which  I  have 
advanced,  and  which  has  brought  on  me  such  a 
torrent  of  reproach^  was  not  obtained  by  inferences 
from  doubtful  principles,  or  an  artful  comparison 
of  scripture  with  scripture  ;  but  it  "was  obtained 
from  the  natural  meaning  of  the  language  of  the 
Apostles,  from    the    explicit   testimony   of  Jesus 


10 

Christ,  and  the  miraculous  voice  of  God  from  Hea- 
ven. Whether  I  am  in  an  errour,  or  not,  God 
knoweth ;  and  he  also  knows,  that  my  faith  was 
not  founded  on  the  creeds  of  men  ;  but  on  what  I 
believed  to  he  the  obvious  sense  of  his  own  testi- 
mony^ the  testimony  of  Christ  whom  he  commanded 
me  to  hear^  and  the  testimony  of  Apostles  who  were 
divinely  commissioned  to  instruct  the  world. 

Yet,  my  fathers  and  brethren,  against  a  sentiment 
fou'ided  on  such  explicit  declarations  of  God,  of 
Christ,  and  his  Apostles,  you  are  not  afraid  nor 
ashamed  to  propose  philosophical  objectious;  and 
that  too  with  as  much  assurance  as  though  you  were 
so  intimately  acquainted  with  his  nature  as  to  know 
that  it  IS  impossible  with  God  to  have  an  own  Son* 

Who,  then,  at  this  day,  are  "too  proud"  to  bow 
to  divine  testimony?  Who  are  the  "  rationalists" 
who  prefer  their  own  reasonings  to  the  Oracles  of 
Heaven  ?  Had  you  been  able  to  produce  such  tes- 
timonies to  prove  that  God  is  three  persons,  as  have 
been  produced  to  prove  ihat  he  is  but  one;  if  you 
could  have,  produced  such  proof  that  Christ  is  tne 
self- existent  God,  as  has  been  produced  to  show 
that  he  is  truly  God's  Son,  and  dependent  on  the 
Father ;  might  you  not  with  more  reason  have  de- 
rided philosophical  objections  against  your  theory? 
How  will  this  matter  appear  in  the  Great  Day  of 
accounts,  when  it  shall  be  fully  shown,  that  you 
have  despised,  as  profane,  all  philosophical  objec- 
tions against  a  form  of  words  which  had  no  place 
in  the  Bible  ;  and  yet  could  make  the  same  kind  of 
objections  against  a  theory  which  you  knezo  harmo- 
nized  with  the  most  natural  meaning  of  the  explicit 
testimony  of  God,  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  ? 

In  the  next  place,  1  would  humbly  entreat  you 
seriously  to  reflect  on  your  manner  of  treating  the 


11 

honest  inquirers  of  your  fellow  men.  Has  it  not 
the  most  direct  tendency  to  suppress  all  free  inqui- 
ry respecting  the  truth  of  popular  opinions  ?  This, 
I  think,  you  cannot  deny,  while  the  course  ot  your 
treatment  tends  to  the  utter  ruirt  of  every  character 
which  may  appear  as  a  dissenter  from  your  creed. 
But  is  it  certain,  beyond  all  rpasonnble  doubt,  that 
your  opinions  are  con  r(  i  ?  May  not  their  correct- 
ness justly  be  questioned  on  the  following  grounds, 
viz. 

1.  That  the  doctrine  which  you  m.ike  fundamen- 
tal was  never  so  much  as  once  intimated  in  the 
preaching  of  Christ  Rnd  his  Apostks;  and  that  its 
whole  support  depends  on  mere  inferences  from  a 
laborious  and  artful  comparison  of  scripture  with 
scripture  ?  Permit  me  to  quote  two  pertinent  ob« 
servations  from  Dr.  Emmons — ''  But  there  is  not 
I  believe  any  essential  or  irrportant  doctrine  of  the 
Bible  which  is  to  be  found  in  such  dark  or  doubt- 
ful texts  only,  as  require  a  great  deal  ot  learning 
and  criticism  to  explain.  If  any  scheme  of  reli- 
gi')us  sentiments  cannot  b^  discovered  and  sup- 
ported by  ^/am  and  intelligible  passas^es  of  scrip- 
ture, there  is  great  reason  to  suspect  the  truth  of  it."* 

In  view  of  these  remarks  I  would  ask,  what  doc- 
trine can  be  named,  the  truth  of  which,  we  have 
more  reason  to  doubt  than  the  doctrine  that  God  is 
three  persons  ?  Where  do  we  find  any  thit)g  it'cm' 
bling  this  doctrine  stated  ''  \n plain  and  intellgible 
passages  of  scripture  ?"  I  know  not  a  single  doc- 
trine, believed  by  any  sect  of  professins;  chiisiians, 
which  has  less  support  from  '* plain  and  intelligible- 
passages  of  scripture  ; — no  one  which  has  less  ap- 

*  See  his  sermon  "  on  the  Plenary  Inspiration  of  Scripture." 


12 

pearance  of  being  affirmed  \n plain  language;  and 
no  one  against  which  more  plain  and  intelligible  pas*- 
sages  of  scripture  may  be  produced.  I  have  no 
belief  in  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  nor  in 
the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation  ;  yet  I  can  ho- 
nestly say,  that  I  think  either  of  thoise  doctrines  has 
more  apparent  support  from  explicit  declarations  of 
scripture  than  the  doctrine  that  God  is  three  per- 
sons. 

2.  Is  there  no  reason  to  doubt  the  correctness  of 
your  fundamental  doctrine,  on  the  ground,  that  the 
proposition  in  which  it  is  contained  has  been  under- 
stood and  explained  in  so  many  different  and  even 
contradictory  forms  ? 

3.  Is  there  no  reason  to  doubt  on  the  ground,  that 
the  doctrine  has  been  so  generally  esteemed  as  too 
sacred  for  explanation  or  close  examination  ;  and 
that  so  great  a  part  of  those  who  profess  to  believe 
it,  are  entirely  at  a  loss  what  can  be  intended  by 
the  proposition  ?  How  tnany  do  we  find  who  ap- 
pear to  be  of  opinion  that  it  is  zorong  to  inquire 
very  closely  into  the  meaning  of  the  proposition  ? 
How  many  who  frankly  own  they  have  7io  idea  of 
what  is  meant  by  the  term  persons  ?  Yet,  say  they, 
"  we  believe  the  fact.^''  Bui  what  fact  do  they  be- 
lieve ?  Is  not  this  the  very  iking  of  which  they 
have  710  idea? 

4.  Is  there  no  reason  to  doubt  on  the  ground  of 
this  solemn  fact,  that  so  late  as  A.  D.  381,  the 
Bishops  of  Constantinople  had  occasion  to  add  to 
all  former  creeds  to  make  out  the  doctrine  you  hold 
so  sacred.  This  fact  is  supported  not  only  by  Dr. 
Mosheim  and  Dr,  Lardner,  but  by  the  concession 
of  Bishop  Burnet,  and  even  Mr.  JMilner.  If  the 
doctrine  had  been  from  Hr^aven,  and  of  such  in- 
finite importance  as  you  have  imagined,  would  it 
have  been  three  hundred   years   after   John  had 


13 

closed  the  revelations  before  the  doctrine  was 
known  in  its  present  form.  No  one  fact  can  be  bet- 
ter supported  by  history  than  this,  That  the  Coun- 
cil of  Constantinople  did  add  io  the  Niccne  Creed  to 
make  out  the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God. 
If  this  had  not  been  an  unquestionable  fact,  we  may 
presume  it  never  would  have  been  conceded  by 
Mr.  Milner. 

5.  Is  there  no  ground  to  doubt  on  this  account, 
that  by  the  same  mode  of  reasoning  which  you 
adopt  to  prove  three  persons  in  Deity,  any  man  of 
ingenuity  may  prove  thirty  or  three  hundred  ? 
That  this  can  be  fairly  done  will  hereafter  be  il- 
lustrated. 

6.  Is  there  no  reason  to  doubt  on  the  ground, 
that  for  so  many  ages  it  has  been  so  exceeditjgly 
perilous  for  any  man  to  dissent  from  that  doctrine  ? 

No  one  thmg  has  more  weight  on  ihe  minds  of 
many  people  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  than  this  ; 
that  for  so  many  a^es  it  has  been  admitted  as  the 
orthodox  faith.  But  only  admit,  that  in  every  age 
since  the  doctrine  was  formed  it  has  been  as  peril- 
ous^ as  it  now  is,  for  a  man  to  inquire  and  to  publish 
the  fruits  of  his  inquiries :  will  not  this  fully  ac- 
count for  the  long  continuance  of  the  doctrine  in 
the  church?  If  the  spirit  which  has  prevailed  since 
my  sentiments  were  first  published,  has  been  the 
prevailing  sjpirit  of  Trinitarians  since  the  year  381, 
it  can  be  no  mystery  that  the  doctrine  has  been  so 
long  admitted. 

But  if  there  be  the  least  ground  to  question  the 
correctness  of  the  doctrine,  or  even  to  fear  that  it 
is  not  true,  ought  not  the  subject  to  be  open  to  free 
investigation  ?  Ought  not  inquiries  to  be  encourag- 
ed instead  of  being  discountenanced  ?  If  it  be,  as  I 
firmly  believe  it  is,  that  the  doctrine  is  an  enor- 
23 


14 

mous  errour,  which  way  are  you  ever  to  be  recov- 
ered from  the  errour  ?  While  the  honest  inquiries 
of  others,  at  the  peril  of  all  that  is  dear  in  this 
world,  are  treated  by  you  with  such  disrespect, 
may  it  not  be  fairly  presumed  that  you  do  not  in- 
quire for  yourselves,  any  further,  or  with  any 
other  view,  than  io  find  support  for  the  doctrine  ? 
Now  if  the  doctrine  be  erroneous^  and  [his  be  the 
mode  of  your  inquiry,  your  whole  study  concern- 
ing this  subject  is  directed  to  the  purpose  of  con- 
firming you  in  errour^  and  fortifying  your  minds 
against  conviction.  If,  in  addition  to  this,  you  do 
all  in  your  power  to  render  it  perilous  to  others  to 
pursue  inquiry  into  the  truth  of  your  opinions,  are 
you  not,  on  the  whole,  completely  prepared  to  re- 
ject every  probable  means  of  recovery  from  er* 
rour  ? 

Yv^hat  would  you  say  of  the  conduct  of  a  Deist 
who  should  perfectly  imitate  your  example  ?  Would 
you  not  consider  him  as  acting  in  the  most  unreas- 
onable manner  ?  would  you  not  view  his  case  as 
desperate  ?  You  believe  that  if  Deists  would  lie 
open  to  conviction,  and  patiently,  examine  respect- 
ing the  evidences  in  favour  of  chi'istianity,  they 
would  see  the  errour  of  their  own  system,  and  em- 
brace revelation.  But  is  it  more  incumbent  on 
Deists  to  lie  open  to  conviction,  in  respect  to  their 
errours,  than  it  is  on  professed  christians?  Does 
it  not  behoove  christians  to  exhibit  before  them  an 
example  of  candour  and  openness  to  conviction  ? 

Can  it  be  supposed  that  much  will  be  done  for 
the  detection  of  errour,  or  the  development  of 
truth,  in  respect  to  long  received  and  popular 
opinions,  w4)ile  the  cond  jct  of  the  clergy  renders  it 
so  extremely  hazardous  for  a  man  to  inquire  in  an 
impartial  manner?  Is  there  any  danger  that  divine 


15 

trulhwiW  suffer  by  free  inquiry?  If  yo\i  entertain 
opinions  which  you  are  unwilling  should  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  strictest  scrutiny,  does  not  this  afford 
some  reason  to  suppose  that  you  have  pf  rceivcd 
that  they  will  not  bear  a  very  close  examination  ? 
If  these  opinions  are  so  clearly  revealed,  and  so 
imj)ortant  as  you  have  pretended,  (Jiey  can  be  sup- 
ported from  the  bible  against  all  the  objections  of 
your  opponents.  But  if  Ihey  will  not  bear  exami- 
nation, and  cannot  fairly  be  supported|by  the  bible, 
the  sooner  they  are  set  aside,  the  better;  the  bet- 
ter for  you,  and  for  the  cause  of  truth  in  general. 

The  treatment  I  have  received  has  been,  in  some 
respects,  such  as  I  cannot  justify  ;  and  such  as  1 
aai  persuaded  God  must  disapprove.  Yet  be  as- 
sured that  I  have  considered  you  as  in  the  flesh, 
have  been  disposed  to  make  many  allowances  for 
human  infirmity,  and  to  be  careful  lest  my  feelings 
should  become  alienated  and  embittered  towards 
those  for  whom  I  had  long  entertained  a  cordial 
esteem.  In  this  attempt,  I  think,  I  have  been  suc- 
cessful. 

It  has  indeed  been  painful  to  consider  myself  as 
viewed  and  treated  as  one  unfriendly  to  Christ.  But 
it  has  been  some  comfort  to  me  to  think  that,  as  the 
ground  of  all  this,  I  had  done  nothing  zcorse  than 
seriously  and  laboriously  to  inquire  after.divine 
truth  5  and  to  publish  the  fruits  of  my  inquiry.  If 
it  had  ever  been  my  aim  to  make  a  schism  in  the 
church  of  Christ ;  if  I  had  written  with  bitter 
revilings  against  those  from  whom  I  had  dissented  ; 
if  I  had  done  any  thing  to  injure  them,  or  alienate 
the  minds  of  others  from  them,  the  cup  of  my  at- 
fliction  would  have  been  exceedingly  imbittered. 
But  feeling  conscious  that  in  respect  to  these 
things  I  was  innocent,  it  was  comparatively  a  light 


16 

thing  to  be  judged  of  you,  or  of  man's  judgment. 
Yea,  under  all  the  censures  and  reproaches  I  have 
borne,  I  have  supported  a  hope,  that  roy  conduct 
has  been  viewed  by  Christ  in  a  very  different  light 
fron?  that  in  which  it  has  been  represented  by  my 
fathers  and  brethren.  Indeed,  I  have  also  main- 
tained a  hope,  l^hat,  in  this  life,  many  of  you  would 
see  that  the  treatment  I  have  received,  is  of  a  na- 
ture which  God  will  never  justify. 

Permit  me  now  to  ask,  why  should  you  unitedly, 
manifest  such  displeasure  against  m.e,  while  there 
is  such  a  palpable  disagreement  among  yourselves 
on  the  very  same  subject.  You  may  indeed  be 
united  in  using  3  form  of  words  ;  but  of  what  con- 
sequence is  this,  while  your  explanations^iind  your 
real  sentiments  2kTe perfectly  discordant  ?  If  any  re- 
gard is  due,  either  to  the  writings  or  the  verbal 
communications  of  my  opponents,  there  is  a  per- 
fect disagreement  among  them  in  respect  to  the 
real  character  of  Christ,  and  what  is  meanthy  three 
persons  in  Deity,  Yea,  so  contradictory  are  your 
opinions,  among  yourselves,  that  if  I  might  allow 
equal  weight  to  the  objections  of  different  persons 
against  my  views,  to  answer  them  all,  1  should  have 
occasion  to  do  no  miOre  than  to  set  the  objections 
of  one  against  the  objections  of  another.  Is  the 
form  of  zvords  all  for  which  you  contend  ?  Is  the 
meaning  of  no  consequence  ?  Shall  a  man  be  brand- 
ed by  you  with  infamy  for  not  admitting  a  form  of 
words  which  you  cannot  explain  ?  or  about  which 
you  are  perfectly  opposed  to  each  other  in  explana- 
tions ?  Without  danger  it  is  believed  I  might  en- 
gage to  return  to  you  on  either  of  the  following 
conditions,  viz.  That  you  should  shoxu  where  your 
doctrine  is  to  be  found  "  in  plain  and  intelligible 
passages  of  scripture,"  or  that  you  should  become 


17 

united  in  sentiment  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  words 
you  hold  so  sacred.  If  you  can  do  neither  of  these 
things,  is  ;t  not  unjust  for  you  to  blame  and  reproach 
others  for  preferring  the  language  of  inspiration  to 
a  form  of  words  which  has  no  intelligible  meaning  ; 
and  in  explaining  which  you  cannot  even  agree 
among  yourselves  ? 

Since  I  dissented  from  your  creed,  one  of  the 
most  discerning  and  most  amiable  of  your  number, 
yea,  one  of  the  most  irreproachable  characters, 
frankly  avowed  to  me,  that  he  never  could,  in  his 
own  mind,  free  the  doctrine  of  three  self-existent 
persons  from  the  charge  of  its  implying  three  dis- 
tinct Gods,  And  if  he  could  not,  we  may  safely 
believe  that  there  are  few  who  can.  Now  if  the  most 
discerning  cannot,  even  in  their  own  conceptions, 
free  the  doctrine  from  the  charge  of  its  implying 
three  distinct  Gods,  is  it  not  both  delusive  and  dan- 
gerous to  admit  the  proposition  ?  If  the  proposition 
had  been  unquestionably  of  divine  revelation,  we 
might  be  excused  in  pleading  for  it,  even  if  we 
could  not  in  our  own  minds  clear  it  from  such  a 
charge.  But  can  we  be  blameless  in  admitting  a 
proposition,  that  is  the  mere  work  of  men's  hands, 
which  so  naturally  conveys  to  our  minds  the  idea 
of  three  Gods  instead  of  one  ?  But  be  assured,  1 
have  not  introduced  the  concession  of  that  worthy 
man  with  any  desire  to  reproach  him.  Notwith- 
standing the  difference  of  opinion  between  us,  I 
esteem  him  as  one  of  the  excellent  of  the  earth, 
and  far  my  superior  in  many  respects.  But  this  is, 
surely,  no  reason  why  I  should  not  question  the 
correctness  of  a  doctrine  which  he  admits,  while  he 
frankly  owns  that  he  cannot,  in  his  own  mind, 
clear  it  from  the  charge  of  implying /Aree  Gods, 

What  ray  standing  was  among  you  anterior  to 
23* 


18 

publishing  my  present  views,  I  could  show  from 
written  documents,  if  it  were  needful  or  proper. 
But  I  never  had  any  ground  for  boasiing,  for  i  had 
nothing  but  what  I  received.  But  as  many  of  you 
know  what  my  standing  was^  in  the  estimation  of 
my  brethren,  and  what  it  has  been  since  I  publish- 
ed my  views,  it  may  be  proper  for  you  as  well  as 
for  me^  to  inquire,  who  has  been  in  the  fault  that  it 
is  not  with  me  as  in  time  past.  What  have  1  done 
which  ought  to  be.  a  ground  for  your  censure  or'* 
displeasure  ? 

That  1  have  many  imperfections,  I  have  no  in- 
clination to  deny  ;  but  this  was  the  case  with  me 
even  while!  possessed  your  estee^m.  And,  perhaps, 
this  7nay  be  (he  case  with  some  of  my  fathers  and 
brethren.  But  what  is  my  offence^  on  the  ground 
of  which  there  has  been  so  great  a  change  in  the 
feelings  of  many  towards  me  ?  Is  it  a  ^m  for  a  man 
to  inquire  into  the  truth  of  ihe  opinions  which  he 
received  in  childhood  by  education?  Is  it  a  re- 
proachful thing  for  a  man  honestly  to  study  the 
scriptures  by  day  and  by  night,  from  year  to  year, 
that  he  may  obtain  correct  views  of  his  God,  and 
his  Saviour?  If,  on  careful  examination,  he  finds 
reason  to  think  that  he  had  formerly  entertained 
erroneous  opinions,  is  a  change  of  opinion  a  proper 
ground  oi  reproach  ?  Being  convinced  of  errour, 
is  it  a  sin  to  confess  that  conviction,  and  to  give  his 
reasons  for  a  change  of  sentiment?  Is  it  a  proper 
ground  of  reproach  for  him,  in  a  respectful  manner, 
to  tell  his  fathers  and  brethren  the  reasons  he  has 
to  think  that  they  are  in  errour?  And  although  he 
may  be  inferior  to  them  in  learning,  discernment 
and  piety,  is  there  no  way  to  account  for  such  con- 
duct in  him  but  by  supposing  that  he  has  a  very 
zoicked  heart,  and  is  puffed  up   with  pride,  vanity. 


19 

anda  love  of  novelty  P  Is  itvie  nature  of  that  char- 
ity which  ''seeketh  not  her  own,  thinketh  no  evil, 
andhopeth  all  things,"  to  put  the  most  unfavourable 
constructions  upon  a  man's  conduct,  in  such  a  case, 
which  C3n possibli/  be  invented  ?  Does  this  charily, 
in  godly  ministers,  lead  tliem  to  atiributethe  change 
in  a  brother's  sentiments  to  the  ve7y  worst  things 
which  could  possiblij  be  the  occasion  of  the  change  ? 
May  it  not  be  possible  for  a  man  lo  change  his  sen- 
timent, and  avow  that  change,'  in  the  manner  1  have 
done,  from  real  love  to  God,  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  to 
his  fellow  men? 

What  objection  or  reproach  has  been  brought 
against  my  conduct,  vvhich  was  not,  and  could  not, 
be  brought  against  the  conduct  of  Luther,  Calvin, 
and  others,  when  they  dissented  from  the  prevail- 
ing and  popular  opinions  of  the  church  of  Rome? 
This  is  mentioned,  not  that  I  wish  to  be  equalled  or 
ranked  with  them  ;  but  merely  to  lead  to  proper  re- 
flections. If  from  pious  motives  they  might  dissent 
from  opinions  which  had  been  long  generally  re- 
ceived by  the  church,  why  is  it  not  possible  that 
others  may  do  the  same  ? 

Is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  their  dissent 
from  thecatholick  faith,  was  attributed  to  the  same 
impious  motives  that  mine  has  been  ?  Were  they  not 
accused  of  great  pride,  vanity,  self  sufficiency,  love 
of  novelty,  and  every  thing  which  prejudice  could 
invent  ?  Were  not  these  formidable  arguments  or 
objections  urged  against  them,  viz.  That  all  or 
nearly  all,  the  pious  men,  and  learned  ministers, 
for  a  long;  time  had,  and  did  then,  admit  the  opinions 
from  which  they  dissented.  If  I  ought  to  esteem 
such  arguments  as  of  great  weight,  were  not  the 
Reformers  blameable  for  treating  them  with  so 
litlh  regard  ? 


20 

1  know,  my  fathers  i%  d  brethren,  that  I  am  lia- 
ble to  be  influence<j  hy  pride,  and  also  to  mistake 
my  own  motives.  But  will  you  be  pleased  to  ask 
yourselves,  what  personal  advantage  I  could  ex- 
pect from  an  avowal  of  a  change  in  my  opinions, 
if  I  was  not  influenced  by  a  sense  of  duty  ?  Could 
I  suppose  that  it  would  be  to  my  honour  or  inter- 
est  to  expose  myself  to  your  displeasure  ?  Or  do 
you  suppose,  that,  after  I  had  been  twenty  years 
in  the  ministry  associated  with  Trinitarians,  I  was 
entirely  ignorant  of  their  feelings  towards  such  as 
dissented  from  their  favourite  doctrine  ? 

If  you  have  suspected  that  I  wished  ^or  a  schism, 
and  to  become  the  demagogue  of  a  religious  sect, 
be  pleased  candidly  to  consider  the  situation  I  vv^as 
in,  when  I  began  to  write  for  the  press.  Such  was 
the  state  of  my  health,  1  really  expected  that  long 
before  this  time  1  should  have  finished  my  course, 
and  that  if  my  views  should  ever  appear  in  print, 
they  would  appear  in  a  posthumous  publication. 
Be  pleased,  also,  to  consider  my  whole  method  of 
conduct  respecting  this  matter.  Did  1  propose  my 
particular  views  as  essential  to  salvation  ?  Did  I 
endeavour,  in  ray  writings,  to  alienate  people  from 
those  ministers  from  whom  1  dissented  ?  Contrary 
to  my  expectation,  my  life  has  been  spared  and  my 
health  in  a  measure  restored.  Have  I  gone  about 
like  a  fanatical  demagogue  to  make  divisions  in 
your  churches  or  societies?  Havel  ever  in  my 
preaching  reproached  those  from  whom  I  have  dis- 
senfed?  Have  I,  in  any  manner,  discovered  a  dis- 
position to  raise  or  even  to  support  myself  by  de- 
faming others?  Let  those  who  have  heard  me 
preach,  and  have  been  conversant  with  me  testify. 

In  what  way,  then,  have  you  evitlence  that  in 
what  1  have  done,  I  have   been  influenced  by  any 


21 

selfish  motive  whatever?  Has  there  been  so  much 
as  one  of  the  peculiar  characteristicks  of  a  schistnai- 
ick  found  in  me?  If  there  has,  let  it  be  properly 
brought  forward,  that  I  may  humble  myself  before 
God  and  man.  But  if  none  of  these  things  are  to 
be  found  in  my  conduct,  and  a  schism  should  be 
the  consequence  ot  publishing  my  sentiments,  to 
whom  will  the  fault  be  attributed  by  him,  ''  who 
seeth  not  as  man  seeth  ?"  If  any  reliance  could  be 
placed  on  my  word  after  all  that  has  been  said 
against  me,  1  could  honestly  aver,  that  a  desire  to 
make  a  schism  among  the  friends  of  Christ,  or  to 
withdraw  from  the  fellowship  of  my  former  breth- 
ren, never  had  for  a  single  moment  a  place  in  my 
heart. 

Permit  me  farther  to  ask,  is  it  a  light  thing  to 
take  away  the  character  of  a  brother  in  the  Minis- 
try ?  or  to  treat  him  in  a  manner  which  ttnds  to 
sink  his  reputation  and  destroy  his  usefulness? 
May  this  be  lawfully  done  prior  to  positive  evi- 
dence of  guilt,  and  faithful  endeavours  for  his  re- 
covery from  supposed  errour?  Have  you  any  posi- 
tive evidence  of  guilt  in  what  I  have  done  ?  Or  if 
you  have,  has  any  faithful  and  brotherly  means 
been  used  for  my  recovery?  Are  all  the  laws  of 
Christ  for  the  recovery  of  a  supposed  offending 
brother  to  be  set  aside  in  a  case  like  mine  ?  Or  is 
reproach  the  only  instituted  method  for  the  recove- 
ry of  an  offending  mini-ter  ?  Has  God  authorized 
any  of  you  to  think  and  judge  for  me  in  matters  of 
religious  faith  ?  Has  he  authorized  any  one  to  treat 
me  as  an  "  apostate"  while  I  honestly  make  his 
word  my  only  rule  of  faith  ?  Of  what  advantage  is 
it  to  me,  that  I  have  understanding  of  my  own,  and 
the  word  of  God  in  my  hands,  if  1  may  not  interpret 
it  according  to   the   light  of  my  own  conscience  ? 


22 

Was  my  understanding  given  me  for  no  higher  pur- 
pose than  to  know  what  you  believe,  or  what  others 
believed  before  we  were  born  ?  Who  has  authorized 
any  Trinitarian  minister  to  denounce  as  apostates, 
hereticks  or  adversaries  to  the  truth,  all  who  dis- 
sent from  a  form  of  words  ofman^s  invention?  and 
a  form  too,  which  no  man  ever  yet  understood,  or 
ever  will  ? 

Have  not  some  Trinitarian  Ministers,  in  this 
thing,  assumed  an  audiority  which  Christ  never 
delegated  to  any  man  ?  To  any  one  who  takes  the 
liberty  to  denounce  as  heretical  those  who  dissent 
from  the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God,  may 
we  not  properly  say  as  the  Jews  did  to  Christ, 
"  Tell  us  by  what  authority  thou  dost  these  things, 
or  who  gave  thee  this  authority  ?"  If  he  shall  an- 
swer, Christ  gave  me  this  authority  ;  may  we  not 
justly  demand  when  and  where  ?  As  we  have  no  ac- 
count of  any  such  auth^jrity  in  the  revelation  which 
is  common  to  all,  may  we  not  require  miracles  in 
support  of  such  pretensions  ?  And  if  he  cannot  give 
this  proof,  have  we  not  reason  to  consider  his  con- 
duct as  of  the  nature  o[ positive  slander  or  reviling  ? 

If  you  say,  the  authority  is  implied  in  the  office  of 
an  ordained  minister,  we  may  ask,  Is  it  not  then 
common  to  all  who  are  regularly  inrlucted  into  that 
otfice  ?  And  why  may  not  your  opporients  denounce 
you  in  the  same  manner  that  you  do  them  ?  But  has 
Christ  authorized  his  ministers  to  spend  their  time 
in  reviling  one  another?  Is  this  any  part  of  the 
work  he  has  assigned  them  ? 

If  you  shall  say,  the  authority  belongs  exclusive- 
ly to  Trinitarian  Ministers,  they  being  the  only  true 
ministers  of  Christ;  you  willhave  but  two  thiugs 
to  do  in  support  of  your  claim,  viz.  to  show  that 
Christ  has  delegated  such  authority  to  his  true  min- 


23 

isters  ;  and  then  that  Trinitarians  are  the  only  true 
ministers  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  first  of  these  points 
requires  proof  with  which  your  opponents  are  not 
acquainted.  In  favour  of  the  second,  they  have 
heard  and  readnoi  a  little  ;  but  as  it  happens  to  be 
all  from  your  own  party  the  testimony  is  viewed  as 
of  a  questionable  nature.  In  this  important  case 
they  wish  for  something  equivalent  to  a  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord." 

~  If  Trinitarian  ministers  possess  the  authority  in 
question,  on  the  ground  of  their  being  the  inajori- 
Z^/,  then  if  the  scale  should  turn,  and  ihey  become 
the  minoriti/,  will  not  the  right  of  denouncing  be,  of 
course,  transferred  into  the  hands  of  your  oppo- 
nents ?  And  are  you  prepared  to  acquiesce  in  such 
denunciations  against  yourselves  ?  Or  will  you  con- 
sider such  conduct  in  them,  as  they  do  yours,  of 
the  nature  of  slander  and  reviling  F 

It  seems  to  f)e  nearly  time,  that  this  matter  should 
be  more  thoroughly  examined  and  better  under- 
stood. TijeiT  is  now,  in  this  land,  not  a  small 
number  of  ministers,  who  have  been  as  regularly  in- 
ducted into  office  as  yourselves,  who  are  dissenters 
from  your  creed.  If  you  have  authority  to  de- 
nounce them  as  false  teachers,  it  is  but  reasonable 
to  admit,  that  you  have  a  right  to  depose  or  re- 
move them  from  office  whenever  you  shall  be  call- 
ed to  sit  in  council  respecting  them.  This  supposed 
authority  we  understand  has  already  been  exer- 
cised by  some  of  your  number.  This  we  admit  to 
be  perfectly  consistent  with  the  practice  of  de- 
nouncing, Ifyou  are  generally  of  the  opinion,  that 
these  two  steps  are  "  doing  God  service^^"^  your  op- 
ponents have  certainly  reason  to  be  thankful  that 
the  civil  arm  is  not  under  your  direction.  It  is, 
however,  hoped  that  a  large  majority  of  you  are 


24 

not  prepared  to  approve  what  has  been  already 
done.  But  if  it  be  otherwise,  some  of  your  oppo- 
nents have  at  least  this  consolation,  that  after  their 
characters  have  been  taken,  it  is  not  in  ihe  power 
of  man  to  do  them  a  greater  injury  than  they  have 
already  experienced. 

I  can  see  no  ground  on  which  you  can  pretend, 
that  you  have  authority  to  depose  from  office, 
those  who  dissent  from  you  in  opinion,  but  simply 
this,  that  you  are  the  majority.  If  this  be  the 
ground,  and  if,  on  this,  you  may  he  justijied,  ihe 
church  of  Rome  might  have  been  jusiitied  in  de- 
posing Luther  and  Calvin  and  all  their  associates. 
And  should  your  opponents  become  the  majority, 
on  the  same  ground  they  may  denounce  and  depose 
you.  And  even  while  you  are  the  majority,  a  case 
may  happen  of  dissention  between  one  o)  you  and 
his  church  ;  the  majority  of  the  council  which  shall 
be  called  may  be  dissenters  from  your  opinion. 
They  will,  then,  have  (he  authority  in  their  hands  to 
depose  one  of  you  from  office.  Are  you  prepar- 
ed to  subtnit  to  such  a  decision  ?.  in  respect  to  my- 
self, I  was  regularly  inducted  into  office  by  a  Tjin- 
itariah  count  il,  the  majority  ot  whom  are  now  dead, 
and,  as  1  believe,  died  in  the  Lord.  Two  of  them 
are  still  in  the  ministry.  But  supposing  they  were 
all  alive  ;  would  they  have  a  right  to  remove  me 
from  office?  If  any  number  of  men  on  earth  would 
have  aright  to  do  it,  they  certainly  would.  But  if 
I  were  now  before  theni  on  trial,  could  I  not  tell 
them,  that  they  chartrod  me  to  study  the  scriptures 
diligently  and  thoroughly^  and  to  make  them  the 
only  rule  of  my  /ai'h  ;  and  not  teach  for  doctrines  the 
decrees  or  commandments  of  men,  and  that  I  had 
done  according  to  their  direction  ?  And  would  it  be 
in  their  power  to  show  the  contrary  ?  Or  could  they 


25 

consistently  even  hlame  me  for  following  such  di- 
rections, from  their  own  lips,  and  from  the  oracles 
of  God  ? 

Besides,  after  J  was  ordained,  was  I  not  on  equal 
ground  as  to  office,  with  those  who  ordained  me? 
What  more  right  then  would  they  have  to  depose 
me,  than  1  should  have  to  depose  them  ?  No  one 
can  pretend  that  the  right  or  authority  of  deposing 
lies  in  any  individual ;  yet  it  may  be  thought  that 
the  authority  may  be  possessed  by  a  number  of  in- 
dividuals united.  But  if  every  individual,  as  such, 
is  perfectly  destitute  of  any  such  authority,  can  they 
derive  authority  by  association  ?  If  each  of  ten  indi- 
viduals is  but  07ie  naught,  as  to  authority  in  this  case, 
their  association  would  amount  to  no  more  than  the 
association  oUeii  naughts  or  ciphers*  And  ten  ciphers, 
we  know,  are  of  no  more  value  than  one  without  an 
integer  prefixed.  But  in  the  present  case,  the  in- 
teger is  not  to  be  found  on  this  side  heaven.  I  think, 
I  am  not  disposed  to  despise  any  authority  which 
Christ  has  delegated  to  his  ministers,  I  am  willing 
to  be  advised ^  and  to  be  reproved,  when  I  go  astray; 
yea,  I  will  freely  consent  to  be  excluded  from  the 
fellowship  of  ministers,  and  of  saints,  if  I  have 
done  any  thing  deserving  such  exclusion.  But  even 
in  such  a  case,  I  should  have  a  right  to  a  fair  trial, 
prior  to  any  act  implying  exclusion,  or  a  withdrazo  of 
fellowship.  But  so  long  as  I  make  the  word  of  God 
my  guide,  I  feel  amenable  for  my  faith  to  no  human 
being  or  human  Council  on  earth  :  For  one  is  my 
MASTEH  EVEN  Christ  ;  and  all  ye  are  brethren. 

From  observations  already  made,  you  have 
doubtless  understood  that  I  can  view  the  denuncia- 
tions of  Trinitarians  against  those  who  dissent  from 
their  creed  in  no  better  light  than  that  of  slander  ov 
reviling*  But,  by  this,  it  is  not  intended  that  any  of 
24 


26 

you  are  conscious  of  acting  the  part  of  reviiers. 
Neither  was  Paul  conscious  of  acting  the  part  of  a 
reviler  or  o.  persecutor  while  he  was  ^^  breathing  out 
threatenings  and  slaughter'^''  against  the  followers  of 
Christ.  But  as  this  is  a  very  serious  matter,  you 
will  indulge  me  in  some  farther  observations  on  the 
subject.  Yet,  lest  you  should  think  that  my  present 
view  of  the  subject  originated  in  my  becoming  more 
particularly  the  object  of  such  denunciations,  I  feel 
bound  to  declare  that  this  is  not  the  case.  Even 
while  I  was  a  Trinitarian  myself,  I  was  much  griev- 
ed with  this  very  thing  in  my  brethren.  Jt  ap- 
peared to  me  an  awful  approach  to  the  charac- 
ter of  the  Pharisees,  who  ''  trusted  in  themselves 
that  they  zvere  righteous;  and  despised  others.''^ 
Many  who  have  been  conversant  with  me  have 
heard  me  bear  testimony  against  such  a  manner  of 
treating  opponents  in  religion.  Nor  did  i  ever  allow 
myself  to  adopt  this  method  in  regard  to  any  sect 
whatever.  Much  of  the  little  I  published,  anterior 
to  my  inquiry  respecting  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  was  designed  for  the  purpose  af  cultivating 
harmony  and  kind  affections  among  those  who  dif- 
fered in  sentiment.  In  my  last  publication^  prior 
to  the  "  Bible  News,"  entitled  "  Solemn  Reasons 
for  declining  to  adopt  the  Baptist  Theory  and  Prac- 
tice," I  spoke  particularly  on  the  subject  of  revil- 
ing, as  an  evil,  not  only  in  some  of  the  Baptists,  but 
also  in  some  of  their  opponents,  and  of  the  perni- 
cious nature  of  such  conduct  by  whomsoever  it 
might  be  practised.  1  may  safely  sny,  that  no  one 
thing  ever  shocked  me  more,  in  respect  toihe piety 
of  professors  of  religion,  than  the  manner  of  their 
speaking  of  those  who  dissented  from  them  in  reli- 
gious opinions  ;  and  when  I  have  considered  the 
commontiess  o(  [he  evil  among  professors,  I  have 


27 

been  obliged  to  have  recourse  to  my  bible  (o  find 
ihe  7iature  sum}  importance  of  religion.  Finding  in 
that,  that  every  thing  of  the  nature  of  such  reviling 
was  condemned,  I  could  not  but  see  that  such  reli- 
gion would  hQ  valuable  indeed  if  its  precepts  were 
duly  regarded  ;  and  that  such  revilings  were  so  far 
from  being  {.hefruils  of  real  religion, {hiii  ihey  were  to 
be  viewed  as  evidences  of  great  imperfection  in  men 
of  every  denomination.  But  although  I  know  that 
I  have  not  allowed  myself  to  judge  of  the  hearts  of 
men  by  their  sentiments,  nor  to  denounce  as  hcre- 
ticks  such  professed  ministers  of  Christ  as  dissented 
from  me  in  opinion,  yet  1  cannot  pretend  to  be  clear 
gf  all  blame  in  my  treatment  of  opponents  in  reli- 
gious mailers  ;  because  it  was  long  ago  suggested 
to  me,  by  my  friends,  that  there  was  a  kind  of  se- 
verity  in  my  manner  of  remarking  on  the  opinions, 
or  conduct  of  others,  which  it  would  be  well  to  cor- 
rect. Such  intimations  have  been  considered  as 
kind  ;and  in  view  of  them  I  endeavoured  to  write  the 
"  Series  of  Letters"  which  I  addressed  to  one  of 
your  number.  But  every  man  has  his  faults  and 
h\?>  peculiarities  in  his  manner  of  writing;  nor  do  I 
expect  ever  to  arrive  to  perfection  in  this  respect, 
or  to  be  able  perfectly  to  correct  the  fault  which 
is  said  to  be  natural  to  me. 

But  as  to  the  practice  o{'  reviling,  which  has  be- 
come so  common  among  professors  of  different  de- 
nominations, I  feel  bound  to  protest  against  it,  as 
one  of  the  most  pernicious  t;ice5  to  be  found  in  oar 
land,  or  our  world.  There  is  scarcely  any  vice  more 
abundantly  prohibited  in  the  scriptures;  and  the 
reviler  is  classed  with  tlie  most  odious  characters  (o 
be  found  among  men.  There  is  no  vice  more  de- 
structive to  ihcpeace  and  happiness  of  society  ;  none 
which  more  confounds  the  distinction  between  coed 


28 

and  bad  men ;  and  no  one  which  more  endangers 
both  the  civil  and  religious  liberties  of  this  nation. 
And  shall  such  an  enormous  vice  be  countenanced 
and  encouraged  by  the  examples  of  those  who  are 
set  apart  to  teach  men  the  way  of  life  ? 

Would  it  not  be  shocking  to  hedivprofane  swearing 
from  the  lips  of  gospel  ministers  ?  But  in  what  res- 
pect is  profane  swearings  or  even  stealing,  a  greater 
evil  than  reviling,  I  know  not  on  what  ground  re- 
viling can  be  esteemed  a  less  evil  than  the  others, 
except  it  be  simply  on  this,  that  it  is  more  common, 
-'  A  good  name  is  rather  to  be  chosen  than  great 
riches;"  and  to  take  from  a  man  a  good  name  is  a 
greater  evil  than  to  take  his  property — a  greater  in- 
jury to  him,  and  a  greater  injury  to  community. 
Shall,  then,  profane  swearing  and  stealing,  be  held 
in  detestation  by  christians,  and  reviling  be  ap- 
plauded as  a  christian  virtue  or  duty  ?  In  how  many 
instances  have  publick  discourses,  from  ministers  of 
different  denominations,  been  applauded  as  most 
efxcellent^  when  the  main  object  of  them  was  to  vili- 
•fy  and  loadzvith  reproach  opponents  in  religion  ;  yea, 
when  the  chief  excellence  oi  the  discourses  consisted 
in  learned  ingenuity  in  reviling. 

Would  you  not,  my  fathers  and  brethren,  esteem 
it  slander  and  reviling  in  your  opponents  to  repre- 
sent you  as  hereticks,  apostates,  adversaries  to  the 
truth  ^nA  propagators  oi  damnable  doctrine?  If  you 
would  call  this  reviling  in  your  opponents,  how  do 
you  expect  to  be  cleared  from  the  charge,  if  you 
thus  reproach  them?  Have  you  obtained  an  exclu- 
sive privilege  to  utter  such  reproachful  language 
with  impunity  ?  Is  it  not  shocking,  that  pulpits,  con- 
secrated for  the  display  o{  Divine  love  to  mankind, 
should  be  turned  into  theatres  for  the  exhibition  of 
the  preacher's  prejudices  against  sucb  as  disseat 


29 

from  him  in  opinion  ?  Is  it  not  iainen fable  that  pul- 
pits, consecrated  to  the  purpose  of  teaching  men  to 
be  meek,  humble,  kind,  and  o(  a  forbearing  spirit  one 
towards  another,  should  be  employed  for  exciting 
in  them  the  most  bitter  and  unfriendly  feelings  to- 
wards their  fellow  creatures  ;  and  to  give  them  ex- 
amples of  a  vice  which  ought  to  be  held  in  detesta- 
tion by  all  mankind  ?  Is  it  not  a  truth,  that  a  great 
part  of  the  bitter  revilings  which  are  heard  among 
common  people,  of  different  sects,  one  toward  ano- 
ther, orii;inale  from  the  examples  of  puhlick  teachers, 
of  the  ditFerent  denominations  ?  And  do  not  many 
preachers,  by  ihexY  fervent  d'clamalions,  and  their 
violent  denunciations,  excite  real  hatreds  in  the 
hearts  of  their  hearers  ?  Is  such  preaching  the  wis- 
dom which  id  from  above?  Or  is  it  that  which  is 
from  beneath  ? 

What   opinion    was  ever  entertained  of  Jesus 
Christ  by  any  of  his  professed  friends  more  disho- 
nourable to  him,  or  more  dangerous  to  the  soids  of 
men,  than  a  belief  ihai  he  is  of  such  a  temper  and 
character,  that  he  can  be  pleased  with  such  abomi- 
nable revilings  under  ihe  pretext  of  love  to  him  ?    I 
do  not  believe  that  even  Satan  himself  ever  enter- 
tained a  sentiment  concerning  Christ  so  reproachful 
to  him  as  this.     Yet,  has  not  the  preaching  of  many 
publick  teachers  a  direct  tendency  to  excite  and 
cultivate  this  horrid  belief  ?  So  extensively  has  this 
spirit  of  reviling  prevailed  in  our  land,  that  it  may 
be  doubted  whether  there  be  one  minister  in  it,  who 
has  not  been  reproached  as  a  heretick,  rn  false  teach- 
er, a  blasphemer^  an  enemy  to  Christ  or  a  propagator 
of  damnable  doctrines  ;  and,  that  too  by  some  other 
publick  teacher,  or  teachers.     Shall  those  who  ha- 
bitually indulge  themselves  in  this  practice  be  es- 
teemed as  the  real  foUoioers  of  Jesus  Christ  ?     If 
24* 


30 

you  say,  yes;  what  do  you  make  of  Christ  better 
than  the  one  whose  works  he  came  to  destroy  ? 

Should  it  be  asked,  have  not  those  who  are  right 
in  sentiment,  just  ground  for  denouncing  those  in 
errour  ?  It  may  be  replied,  that  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  any  sect  of  christians  dire  free  from 
errour,  yea  great  errours  ,*  and  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  all  the  sentiments  of  any  sect  are 
erroneous.  There  is  no  infallibility  in  any  sect  or 
any  person  :  and  there  is  no  person  who  does  not 
view  his  own  sentiments  to  be  right.  Therefore, 
to  admit  that  those  who  are  right  in  sentiment,  may 
lawfully  denounce  those  who  differ  from  them, 
would  be  the  same  as  to  give  universal  license  to 
reviling  ;  or  the  same  as  to  admit  that  each  sect  has 
a  lawful  right  to  revile  others.  And  such  is  the 
ground  which  seems  to  be  generally  taken ;  and 
thus  the  christian  world  is  filled  with  bitter  vey'iU 
ings,  to  the  great  dishonour  of  the  christian  name, 
and  to  the  grief  of  every  considerate  and  humble 
follower  of  Christ. 

But  are  there  no  essential  doctrines,  a  denial  of 
which  justly  exposes  a  person  to  be  denounced  as 
2i  heretickP — Every  doctrine  of  the  gospel  is  im- 
portant in  its  nature  and  connexion,  yet  some  doc- 
trines are  doubtless  more  important  and  essential 
than  others.  But  there  is  no  doctrine  of  the  gos- 
pel, a  belief  of  which  has  half  the  appearance  of 
being  represented  as  essential  to  the  salvation  of 
the  soul  as  this,  that  "  Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  Son 
of  the  living  God."  With  a  belief  in  this  doctrine, 
promise?  of  life  and  salvation  are  connected— with 
a  disbelief  of  this  doctrine,  threatenings  of  wrath 
are  connected.  But,  in  respect  to  the  doctrines 
which  you  have  made  essential,  viz.  that  God  is 
three  persons,  and  that  Christ  is  the  living  God  ;  no 


31 

promise  of  life  or  favour  is  connected  with  believ- 
ing in  any  such  thing  ;  no  threatening  of  wrath 
against  those  who  reject  them;  neither  did  Christ, 
or  his  apostles  require  a  belief  in  any  such  senti- 
ments, or  so  much  as  propose  them  to  the  conside- 
ration of  mankind.  If  any  one  of  you  will  show  me 
a  single  passage  in  the  bible,  which  has  even  the 
appearance  of  making  a  belief  in  either  of  those  doc- 
trines essential  io  salvation,  I  will  hold  myself  under 
solemn  engagement  never  afterwards  to  move  my 
tongue  or  my  pen  against  them.  If  you  cannot  do 
this,  be  pleased  seriously  to  ponder  the  following 
quotation  from  the  pious  Mr.  Baxter. 

"Two  things  have  set  the  church  on  fire,  and 
been  the  plagues  of  it  for  above  one  thousand  years. 
1.  Enlarging  our  creed  and  making  more  fundamen- 
tals than  God  ever  made.  2.  Composing,  and  so 
imposing,  our  creeds  and  confessions  in  our  own 
words  and  phrases.  When  men  have  learned  more 
manners  and  humility/  than  to  accuse  God'^s  language 
as  too  genera/ and  abscure,  as  if  they  could  mend  it  ; 
and  have  more  dread  of  God  and  compassion  on 
themselves,  than  to  make  those  to  be  fundamen- 
tals or  certainties  which  God  never  made  so  ;  and 
when  they  reduce  their  confessions,  first,  to  their 
due  extent,  and,  secondly,  to  scripture  phrase,  that 
dissenters  may  not  scruple  subscribing  ;  then,  I 
think,  and  never  till  then,  shall  the  church  have 
peace  about  doctrinals." 

How  happy  it  would  have  been  for  the  christian 
world  if  the  sentiments  here  expressed  by  that  god- 
ly man  had  been  universally  adopted  ! 

Have  you  not,  my  fathers  and  brethren,  "  made 
more  fundamentals  than  God  ever  made  ?"  Yea, 
have  you  not,  in  effect,  set  aside  those  which  God 
made,  to  establish  those  of  your  own  making  ?     Do 


32 

not  your  hypotheses  that  God  is  three  persons^  and 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  "  only  true  God,"  fairly 
imply  a  denial  of  that  great  truth  on  which  the 
church  is  built,  viz.  that  Jesus  is  "  the  Christ  the 
Son  of  the  living  God  ?"  Can  he  be  both  the'^  only 
true  GocP^  and  the  ''Son  of  the  living  GodP^  I 
know  that  it  has  been  pretended  that  he  is  both  ; 
but  Peter,  in  his  confession,  neither  said  nor  inti- 
mated any  such  thing.  Nor  did  Christ  correct  his 
confession  before  he  said,  *'  On  this  rock  will  I 
build  my  church."  Have  1  been  censured  by  you 
for  believing  that  Peter's  confession  was  the  truth  l 
You  will  sny  no  ;  but  for  not  believing  that  Christ 
was  the  self-existent  God  as  well  as  the  Son  of  God, 
That  he  is  the  Son  of  God, you  saif,  you  admit,but  you 
hold  it  to  be  also  essential  to  believe  that  he  is  "  the 
true  God"  as  well  as  "  the  Son  of  God,"  Why  then 
did  not  Christ  correct  Peter's  confession  before  he 
gave  it  such  a  decided  approbation  ?  The  confes- 
sion, to  have  accorded  \^ith  your  views,  should 
have  stood  thus :  '*  Thou  art  the  Christ,"  the 
TRUE  God,  and  "the  Son  of  the  living  God." 
And  the  language  of  Christ  in  representing  the 
love  of  God  to  mankind,  to  agree  with  what  you 
hold  to  be  essential^  must  be  accommodated  in  a 
similar  manner,  ''God so  loved  the  world  that  he 
gave"  the  true  God,  "  his  only  begotten  Son, 
that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish 
but  have  everlasting  life."  Such  interpolations 
are  needed  in  a  thousand  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  to  accommodate  the  scriptures  to  your 
views.  And  does  not  the  whole  of  my  offence^  on 
the  ground  of  which  I  have  been  reproached,  con- 
sist in  this,  that  I  reject  all  such  interpolations  in 
the  sense  of  scripture  ? 


33 

To  allude  to  Mr.  Baxter's  language,  one  of  the 
"  fundamentals  that  God  made"  is  this,  "that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  son  of  the  living  God;"  but  have  you 
not  "  enlarged  the  creed"  by  making  it  also  a  "  fun- 
damental," that  ^'  Christ  is  the  true  God?'>'>  If  your 
theory  be  correct,  the  confession  of  Peter,  and  the 
testimony  of  Christ,  are  %o  deficient  as  to  really  need 
the  words  which  have  been  interpolated,  to  ex- 
press the  zuhole  truth.  But  Mr.  Baxter  thought, 
that  "when  men"  shall  "have  more  manners  and 
humility  than  to  accuse  God'^s  language  as  too  gen. 
eral  and  obscure^  as  though  they  could  mend  it," 
better  times  will  be  enjoyed  in  the  church.  Let 
us  then,  my  fathers  and  brethren,  unite  in  our  en- 
deavours to  learn  such  ^' manners  and  humility. ^^ 
Permit  me  here  to  add,  as  my  belief,  that  when  we 
shall  all  have  so  "  learned"  as  not  "  to  accuse  God's 
language  as  too  general  and  obscure,^^  we  shall 
most  cordially  acquiesce  in  thi^  truth,  that  Christ  is 
God^s  own  Son,  and  shall  give  up  the  doctrine,  that 
God  is  three  persons,  as  the  fruit  of  irreligious  con* 
troversy, 

I  am  neither  a  prophet  nor  a  prophet's  son,  but 
it  seem^  to  me,  that  it  requires  but  little  more  than 
common  sagacity  to  foresee,  that  the  manner  in 
which  some  of  your  sect  are  disposed  to  treat  all 
who  dissent  from  your  creed,  will,  in  the  course  of 
events,  involve  consequences  unfavourable  to  your 
own  tranquillity.  But  if,  in  this  imperfect  state, 
it  be  an  honour  to  any  sect  to  assume  to  themselves 
all  \\\Q  piety  in  this  world,  and  to  set  up  such  a  claim 
to  infallibility  as  to  denounce  all  who  dissent  from 
their  favourite  opinions,  this  honour,  I  hope,  you 
will  enjoy  without  a  rival.  I  find  in  myself  no  dis- 
position to  set  up  such  a  claim,  nor  to  share  in  such 
HONOUR.     I    prefer  being  despised  and   d&nounced 


34 

for  my  sentiments,  rather  than  to  despise  and  de- 
nounce you  or  any  other  sect  of  professed  chris- 
tians. 

*'  Behold  how  the  christians  love  one  another!" 
Such  was  the  exclamation  of  unbelievers  in  the 
early  ages  of  Christianity.  But  what  is  the  excla- 
mation of  utibelievers  at  the  present  day,  in  view 
of  the  conduct  of  different  sects  of  christians  one 
towards  another  ?  Must  it  not  be  this,  ''  Behold 
how  the  christians  hate  one  another  ?"  Has  Chris- 
tianity perfectly  changed  its  character  ?  or,  is  there 
*'  utterly  a  fault"  among  christians  at  this  day  ? 
What  is  the  occasion  of  this  mournful  state  of  things, 
that  a  man  must  expose  to  peril  his  character,  or 
neglect  to  inquire  respecting  (he  truth  of  the  opin- 
ions he  imbibed  before  he  was  capable  of  judging 
for  himself?  What  is  the  reason,  that  persons  of 
different  sentiments  cannot  exercise  forbearance, 
and  love  one  another  with  a  pure  heart  fervently  ? 
Is  it  not  this,  that  professed  christians  have  for- 
gotten that  zcithout  love  they  are  "  nothing  .^"  Has 
not  Lovs,  in  the  christian  scheme,  been  supplanted 
to  give  place  to  a  belief  in  the  commandments  of 
men  ?  And  have  not  professed  christians,  in  a  great 
measure,  lost  the  s'p'irit  zxn6forgoilen  the  example  of 
their  Lord  and  Master  ? 

Were  not  the  apostles  of  Chrisl  in  so  great  an 
trrour  respecting  the  nature  of  his  kingdom,  as  t^ 
suppose  that  he  was  to  reign  literally  on  the  throne 
of  David  ?  Did  they  not  entertain  this  opinion, 
even  after  he  rose  from  the  dead;  and  on  this 
ground  say  to  him,  '*  wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore 
again  the  kingdom  unto  Israel  ?"  What  sect  of 
christians,  at  this  day,  entertain  a  more  erroneous 
opinion  than  this  ?  How  then  did  Christ  treat  those 
apostles  in  respect  to  their  erroneous  opinions  ? 
Did  he  denounce  them  as  hereticks^  as  enemies  to 


35 

Aim,  and  adversaries  to  the  truths'  Did  he  exclude 
them  from  his  fellowship^  shun  their  company^  and 
reproach  them  before  the  multitude  ?  Or  did  lie  biill 
love  them,  treat  them  tenderly^  and  continue  to  in- 
struct, and  employ  them  ? 

For  what  purpose  was  this  part  of  our  Saviour's 
conduct  recorded  ?  Was  it  recorded  as  an  exam- 
ple for  us  to  imitate  in  our  conduct  towards  such  as 
we  should  consider  in  errour?  Or  was  it  recorded 
as  a  blemish  in  his  character,  and  a  warning  to  us 
to  take  heed  that  we  be  not  thus  candid  towards  the 
erroneous  ? 

Let  it  be  supposed  that,  in  our  New  Testament, 
an  interpolation  had  been  handed  down,  purportmg 
to  be  a  sermon  from  the  iips  of  Christ,  addressed  to 
the  multitude,  respecting  the  erroneous  opinions  of 
the  apostles.  Let  it  further  be  supposed,  that  this 
sermon  was  written  in  the  same  reproachful  strain 
of  some  sermons  of  the  present  day;  denouncing 
the  apostles  as  hereticks^  adversaries  to  the  truth, 
too  proud  to  submit  to  the  dictates  of  revelation  ; 
accompanied,  also,  with  fervent  exhortatiojis  to  the 
people  to  beware  of  such  "  damnable  heresies,^"* 
What  a  figure  would  this  sermon  have  made  in  the 
history  of  the  Son  of  God  ?  What  a  perfect  con- 
trast of  temper  to  all  that  is  now  recorded  of  him  ! 
It  even  makes  me  shudder  when  I  compare  the 
temper  and  conduct  ol  Christ,  tow.irds  his  erring  dis- 
ciples, with  the  temper  and  conduct  oi some  ])reach- 
ers  of  the  present  day.  The  universe  itself  can 
hardly  furnish  a  greater  contrast.  Shall  we,  who 
are  of  yesterday,  and  liable  to  ten  thousand  errours 
ourselves,  be  censorious  and  incompassiorjale  to- 
wards such  as  dissent  frou)  our  opinions  ?  Shall  we 
pretend  to  know  better  how  to  treat  the  erro- 
neous than  our  Divine  Instructer  ? 


36 

What  a  blessed  change  would  tak^  place,  if  all 
the  publick  teachers  in  our  land  would,  in  temper 
and  conduct,  inaitate  our  common  Lord  and  Master  ? 
If  publick  teachers  of  diiferent  sentiments  were  to 
lay  aside  the  spirit  of  bitterness  and  reviling,  asso- 
ciate together,  and  endeavour  to  aid  each  other  in 
their  inquiries  after  truth,  what  rapid  progress 
might  be  made  compared  with  what  has  been  in 
time  past.  Besides,  this  kind  spirit  in  publick 
teachers  would  have  such  an  influence  upon  their 
respective  churches  and  societies,  that  we  should 
soon  have  occasion  to  saj,  *'  Behold  how  good  and 
how  pleasant  it  is  for  brethren  to  dwell  together  in 
unity  !"  In  view  of  such  a  state  of  things,  Deists 
would  see  that  there  is  something  in  the  "  power 
of  religion"  not  to  be  derided,  nor  despised.  But 
so  long  as  they  hear  us  talk  about  the  ^'' power  of 
religion,'''^  and  see  at  the  same  time,  that  it  has  no 
power  over  our  passions,  or  our  tongues,  unless  it 
be,  to  make  us  the  more  fierce  in  our  contentions, 
and  the  more  bitter  in  our  revilings,  will  they  not, 
and  may  they  not,  deride  our  pretensions  to  piety 
and  benevolence?  If  they  neglect  to  study  our 
scriptures,  and  judge  of  the  nature  of  our  religion 
by  the  conduct  of  different  sects  towards  each  other, 
will  they  not  very  naturally  conclude  that  malevo- 
lence is  a  principal  ingredient  in  Christianity  ?  But, 
if  they  can  fully  study  our  scriptures,  duly  observ- 
ing the  temper,  the  example,  and  the  precepts  of 
Christ,  and  then  judge  o(  our  characters  by  our  tem- 
per and  conduct  toward  such  as  dissent  from  us  in 
opinion,  will  they  not  naturally  conclude,  that  the 
greater  part  of  professors  are  real  hypocrites  .^ 

Take  away  from  the  christian  religion  the  spirit 
of  love^  meekness,  humility,  forbearance  and  for- 


37 

giveness,  and  what  is  it  better  than  the  mndlcUvt  and 
blood-thirsty  religion  of  Mahomet  ?  Is  it  not  a 
shame  for  professors,  or  ministers,  to  talk  about  the 
"  power  of  religion"  and  its  eflicacy  upon  the 
hearts  and  lives  of  men,  while  their  own  tongues 
are  so  unbridled  that  out  of  the  same  mouth  pro- 
ceedeth  blessing  and  cursing  .^"  Or,  praising  their 
own  sect  and  reviling  others?  "  Can  di  Jig-tree,  my 
brethren,  bear  olive  berries  .^" 

If  the  same  amount  of  time,  and  the  same  fervent 
exertions  which  have  been  devoted  to  inveighing 
one  against  another,  had  been  employed  in  culti- 
vating feelings  of  tenderness^  love,  forbearance, 
and  all  the  kind  affections  required  by  the  precepts, 
and  exemplified  in  the  life  of  our  Saviour,  how  hap- 
py would  have  been  the  state  of  society  at  this  day  ! 
Should  we  not  have  been  able  to  put  Deists  to  the 
blush  by  the  "  power  of  religion  ?"  Should  we  not 
have  been  on  fairer  ground  to  obtain  access  to  the 
consciences  of  careless  sinners  ?  And  should  we 
not  have  known  better  by  experience,  that  the 
ways  of  wisdom  are  ways  of  pleasantness,  and  her 
paths  the  paths  of  peace? 

I  am  not  insensible,  my  fathers  and  brethren, 
that  I  stand  on. very  unfavourable  ground  to  be 
heard  by  those  of  you  who  have  ventured  to  de- 
nounce and  treat  me  as  a  heretick.  When  once  a 
man  falls  under  the  imputation  of /iere^y,  however 
unjustly  it  may  be,  an  unfavourable  construction 
will  be  given  to  whatever  he  may  say  or  do.  But 
I  cannot  believe  that  you  have  all  concurred  in 
this  imputation.  I  have  had  reason  to  think  that 
very  dilTerent  feelings  have  been  indulged  by  dif- 
ferent persons;  and  that  those  who  have  exani'nicd 
most  patiently  have  judged  mosi  favonrahb/.  What 
has  been  said  on  the  subject  of  reviling  is  by  no 
25 


38 

means  (o  be  applied  indiscriminately  to  all ;  nor  to 
be  limited  to  those  of  your  denomination.  It  is  the 
vice  itselt  which  I  wish  to  bring  into  contempt^  and 
not  the  persons  who  are  guilty.  It  has  long  ap- 
peared to  me,  that  this  'oice  forms  the  most  general 
and  the  most  intolerable  blemish  in  the  character 
of  professed  christians.  Nor  is  it,  in  my  view, 
possible,  that  either  ministers  or  churches  should, 
in  the  scriptural  sense,  "shine  as  lights  in  the 
world,"  whde  this  vice  is  by  them  indulged.  If 
they  shine  at  all,  their  light  will  not  be  like  the 
mild,  vivifying  and  comforting  shining  of  the  sun  ; 
but  it  will  more  resemble  that  of  vindictive  light- 
nings, accompanied  with  ttrrifick  thunders.  This 
vice  has  long  stood  as  a  bulwark  in  the  way  of  free 
inquiry,  respecting  the  truth  of  popular  opinions  : 
it  excites  such  an  "awe"  in  the  minds  of  people, 
that  the  greater  part  but  half  inquire,  or  forbear 
any  inquiry  at  all.  Before  I  published  any  thing 
on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  a  learned,  ingenious 
and  pious  friend,  having  heard  that  I  had  engaged 
in  the  inquiry,  felt  great  concern  about  the  issue  ; 
he  kindly  cautioned  me  against  speculating  much 
on  the  subject,  and  to  enforce  his  caution  mention- 
ed, that  most  of  the  men  of  great  talents,  who  had 
allowed  themselves  in  speculations  of  this  kind, 
had  finally  given  up  the  great  ^''fundamental  doc- 
trine,'''' This  1  have  mentioned  to  illustrate  the 
fear  and  terror  with  which  even  joiow5  and /earMec? 
men  look  at  any  thing  which  relates  to  an  inquiry 
into  the  truth  of  the  popular  doctrine.  But,  in  my 
opinion,  the  very  reason  he  kindly  gave  against 
pursuing  my  inq»iiries  should  be  considered  as  a 
reason  for  inquiry.  If  most  men  of  great  talents 
who  have  allowed  themselves  to  examine,  have 
seen  reason  to  give  up  the  doctrine,  we  may  pret- 


39 

ty  naturally  infer  a  probability,  that  those  men  of 
great  talents  who  have  not  c^iven  up  the  doctrine, 
h^we  neglected  ?i  thorough  examination;  and  that 
this  neglect  is  the  real  reason  wh^  theij^  also,  have 
not  renounced  it  as  well  as  those  who  have  exam- 
ined. Those  who  have  examined  thoroughly,  arq 
likely  to  be  in  the  best  situation  to  ju'lge':  and,  in 
ordinary  cases,  a  man's  possessing  '•'  great  talcnls" 
is  not  a  very  weighty  reason  why  the  result  of  his 
inquiries  should  he  disregarded. 

From  the  caution  given  by  my  friend  1  think  it 
may  be  pretty  safely  inferred,  that  he  had  not  al- 
lowed himself  to  examine  the  subject  very  closely  ; 
and,  that  he  was  deterred  from  so  doing  through 
fear  of  the  result.  I  did  not  however  understand 
him  as  supposing  that  there  were  men  of  greater 
talents  among  those  who  had  given  up  the  doctrine, 
than  among  those  who  had  not.  Nor  do  I  suppose 
any  such  thing.  Yet  I  believe  he  would  have  been 
correct  in  staling  that  most  of  those  of  great  talents, 
and  even  of  moderate  talents,  who  had  allowed 
themselves  to  go  into  a  thorough  examination  of 
the  subject,  have  given  up  the  doctrine  ;  and  this  I 
suspect  will  ever  be  the  case  ;  and,  that  the  only 
way  for  a  person  to  persevere  in  a  belief  of  the 
doctrine  is,   to  forbear  any    thoroygh  examination. 

When  you  represent  this  doctrine  as  essential  ov 
fundamental,  I  conclude  your  meaning  is  that  a 
belief  in  this  doctrine  is  essential  o  salvation.  But 
if  ihis  doctrine  be  thus  essential,  why  was  it  not 
thus  stated  in  the  preaching  of  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles ?  What  has  become  of  all  the  pious  Jews  who 
died  before  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  '?  They  had 
no  idea  that  their  God  was  three  persons.  What 
has  become  of  the  multitude  of  pious,  ignorant 
christians,  who    have  died  since  the  doctrine  was 


40 

admitted  in  the  church,  and  who  had  no  idea  of 
what  was  intended  by  the  terms  ?  Are  you  aware 
that  a  very  great  part  of  ihe  pious  people,  even  in 
your  own  churches,  are  as  ignorant  of  the  meaning 
of  the  proposition  as  though  they  never  had  seen 
Or  heard  it  expressed  ?  Are  you  aware  that,  not- 
withstanding a  ii  the  pains  you  have  taken,  by  far 
the  greater  part  of  your  own  hearers  do  really  con- 
sider Jesus  Christ  as  a  being  properly  distinct 
from  God,  yea,  as  distinct  as  any  son  is  distinct 
from  his  father  ?  Whether  you  are  aware  of  this  or 
not,  it  is  believed  to  be  in  fact  the  case.  And  this 
belief  is  founded  on  the  result  of  inquiries  of  pri- 
vate christians  who  had  always  lived  under  the 
preaching  of  Trinitarians.  Inquiries  having  been 
made  of  many  such  persons  of  the  most  unques- 
tionable piety,  and  very  respectable  in  point  of 
talents,  who  have  said  they  nerer/i«c?  any  other  idea 
of  Christ  than  that  which  I  have  published,  that 
they  never  had  a  thought  that  he  was  the  self-exist- 
ent  God.  or  the  same  Being  as  the  father  ;  but  they 
ever  supposed  that  he  was  properly  God's  Son, 
And  it  is  believed  that  the  censures  which  have 
been  passed  on  my  views,  are  censures  of  the 
views  of  a  very  great  part  of  the  pious  christians  in 
this  land.  How  could  it  be  otherwise  ?  No  sooner 
are  the  children  of  pious  parents  able  to  speak  in- 
telligibly, than  they  are  taught  to  say,  and  to  be- 
lieve,  that  "  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God." 
They  grow  up  with  this  idea  :  their  reading  in  the 
scriptures  serves  to  confirm  it,  and  so  does  a  great 
part  ihey  hear  from  the  pulpit,  both  in  prayer  and 
preachiyig.  And  every  analogy  with  which  they 
ever  become  acquainted  leads  them  to  consider  the 
Son  of  God  as  a  being  distinct  from  his  Father. 
When  they  hear  ministers  preach  on  the  doctrines. 


41 

that  God  is  three  persons,  and  that  Christ  is  the 
same  Being  as  God  the  Father,  they  may  give  a 
kind  of  assent  that,  in  some  unknown  sense^  what  the 
preacher  says  may  be  true;  but  all  this  does  not 
eradicate  from  their  minds  the  early  impression  of 
Father  and  Son,  To  make  common  people  believe, 
that  a  Father  and  his  own  Son  are  really  the  same 
individual  Being  is  no  easy  task.  But  it  is  not  so 
difficult  for  you  to  make  them  believe  that  a  brother 
in  (he  ministry  has  published  a  very  wicked  doc- 
trine, although  it  may  be  the  same  that  they  al- 
ways have  believed,  and  do  still  believe.  Not  a 
small  number  have  been  greatly  alarmed  by  the 
outcry  of  Trinitarian  ministers  in  respect  to  what 
I  have  published,  who,  when  they  came  to  know 
the  truth  respecting  what  was  written,  have  been 
surprised  to  find  that  they  had  always  believed  the 
same  doctrine.  And  it  is  supposed  that  many 
thousands  more  will  yet  be  surprised  in  the  same 
manner;  unless  you  shall  have  influence  enough  to 
prevent  their  reading  for  themselves.  Should  you 
severally  make,  to  your  respective  churches  and 
societies,  a  fair  and  honest  statement  of  the 
views  I  have  published,  without  any  intimation 
whose  views  they  are,  or  whether  you  approve  or 
disapprove ;  then  inquire  of  each  adult  person 
whether  such  had  been  his  or  her  views  of  God 
and  Jesus  Christ ;  it  is  believed  that  you  would  find 
a  very  great  number  of  such  hercticks  as  I  am,  in 
your  own  enclosures.  Andt  hese  hereticks  would 
perhaps  be  able  to  tell  you,  that  they  had  suppos- 
ed from  your  own  prayers  and  preaching  that  you 
believed  the  same  things. 

In  bringing  this   long  address  to  a  close,  permit 
me,  my   fathers  and  brethren,  to  observe,  that  the 
time  is   rapidly  approaching,  when  you  and  your 
25^ 


42 

reproached  brother  must  meet  at  the  tribunal  of 
Him  whose  character  has  been  the  great  vSubject 
of  debate.  He  knows  how  many  days  and  nights, 
months  and  years,  I  have  spent  in  serious  inquiry 
respecting  his  character,  the  character  of  the  one 
God  and  his  Spirit,  He  knows  the  motives  by 
which  I  have  been  governed,  and  the  temper  with 
which  I  have  pursued  my  inquiries.  If  I  have  been 
prompted  by  pride ^  vanity^  or  love  of  novelty^  or 
any  base  motive^  it  will  be  made  to  appear,  and 
will  meet  deserved  dis-^ppi  obation.  On  the  other 
hand,  he  has  been  acquainted  with  your  treatment 
of  the  ^i/ijVc/,  and  with  your  treatment  of  me.  If 
you  have  bestowed  on  the  subjpct  that  decree  of 
impartial  attention  which  its  importance  demands^ 
this  will  be  clearly  shown.  If  you  have  treated 
wie,  and  my  character^  with  that  tenderness  which 
his  laws  and  his  example  require,  this  will  appear 
to  your  advantage,  and,  I  hope,  to  my  great  satis- 
faction. But  if  any  of  you  have  censured  me  rash- 
ly, judging  me  prior  to  any  proper  examination,  or 
have  impeached  my  motives  without  ariy  evidence 
of  my  guilt,  and  endeavoured  to  prepossess  the 
minds  of  others  against  me  by  revilings,  or  by 
misrepresentations  of  my  views  ;  for  these  things  it 
is  my  prayer  that  you  may  obtain  forgiveness. 
Although  I  cannot  but  sensibly  feel  the  injury  done 
to  my  character,  by  what  I  conceive  to  be  improper 
conduct  on  the  part  of  some  of  my  fathers  and  breth- 
ren, 1  do  not  find  the  least  desire  in  my  heart  that 
any  evil  should  be  recompensed  to  those,  by  whose 
conduct  my  character  is  suffering.  I  wish  them 
no  evil  in  the  present,  or  the  coming  world.  My 
eonscience  bears  me  wi:ness,  that  1  have  made  it 
an  object  of  my  study  and  care  to  avoid  giving  of- 
fbnce  to  my  brethren,  and  to  forbear  wounding  ob- 


43 

servations  ;  yet  in  some  instances  I  have  doubtless 
been  faulty.  I  have  some  knowledge  of  my  nat- 
ural temper  and  liability  to  go  astray ;  and  yon 
will  not  doubt  that  I  have  had  considerable  to  bear 
while  under  the  disfDlnasure  of  such  a  numt^rous 
host.  But  for  every  wounding  or  improper  remark 
which  has  proceeded  from  me,  I  ask  forgiveness, 
to  whomsoever  it  may  have  been  made.  No  pro- 
vocation whatever  can  justify  me  in  doing  wrong. 

1  hope  I  have  not  been  unmindful  of  tlie  hand  of 
God  in  the  trinl  I  have  endured.  I  needed  afflic- 
tion, and,  1  think,  that  it  has  not  been  altogether 
unprofitable  tome.  Still  heavier  trials  may  be  in 
reserve;  but  Go  J  is  all  sufficietjt.  To  html  would 
com  nit  my  cau^e.  It  has  not  been  uncommon,  that 
those,  who  have  dissented  from  you  in  opinion, 
have  been  represented  as  very  indifferent  in  res- 
pect to  dhctrinal  sentiments  ;  as  though  they  view- 
ed it  a  matter  of  no  consequence  what  a  man  be- 
lieves. But  whatever  may  have  been  your  appre- 
hensions, this  is  not  the  case  with  me.  Had  it 
been  so,  I  think  I  should  not  have  spent  so  much 
time  to  obtain  satisfactory  views  for  myself  of 
God  and  his  Son.  I  hope,  however,  1  shall  never 
have  such  a  kind  of  zeal  in  favour  of  my  own  views 
as  to  become  indifferent  in  respect  to  the  temper 
with  which  I  attempt  to  propagate  and  defend 
ihem.  For  it  is  seriously  my  belief  that  a  temper 
of  heart  conformed  to  the  temper  of  Christ  is  of 
far  greater  importance,  than  ani/ particular  senti- 
ment in  respect  to  his  person  and  dignity,  Ameek, 
humble  and  benevolent  temper  may,  1  think,  be  pos- 
sessed by  persons  who  have  very  incorrect  views 
of  the  character  of  God,  and  of  Christ.  It  is  on 
this  principle,  that  i  have  comfort  in  believing  that 
many  of  you  are  the  real  children  of  God.     If  I 


44 


were  in  the  habit  of  believing  that  correctness  of 
sentiment^  \n  respect  to  the  person  and  dignity  of 
Christ,  must  necessarily  be  implied  in  the  charac- 
ter of  a  true  christian,  I  could  have  no  hope  of 
any  one  of  you,  or  of  those  who  agree  with  you  in 
sentiment.  For  some  of  your  sentiments  appear 
to  me  as  foreign  from  the  gospel  as  light  is  from 
darkness.  There  is,  however,  another  sentiment 
which  seems  to  be  entertained  by  some  of  you, 
which  is  much  more  difficult  for  me  to  reconcile  to 
the  christian  character  than  your  views  of  the 
Trinity  :  viz.  that  sentiment  by  which  they  feel 
authorized  to  limit  their  charity  to  such  as  agree 
with  them  in  opinion,  and  to  denounce  others  as 
hereticks.  This  sentiment  has  the  appearance  of 
originating  in  the  heart,  and  of  involving  such /eeZ- 
ings  and  affections  as  are  directly  contrary  to  that 
humility,  meekness  and  benevolence,  without  \<^hich 
we  are  nothing.  Yet,  when  1  feel  perplexed  in 
view  of  this  sentiment,  and  its  effects,  I  turn  my  eyes 
immrd  and  contemplate  my  own  imperfections  ;  1 
look  around  on  others  for  whom  1  cannot  but  en- 
tertain charity,  and  see  imperfections  in  them  ;  I 
meditate  on  the  amazing  influence  of  education  in 
the  various  parts  of  the  world  ;  particularly  on  the 
almost  unconquerable  prepossessions  of  the  apostles 
znd  pious  Jews  respecting  the  nature  of  Christ's 
kingdom;  on  the  views  and  feelings  of  James  and 
John,  when  they  would  have  called  fire  from 
heaven  to  consume  the  Samaritans,  who  had  treat- 
ed their  Master  in  a  disrespectful  manner  ;  and  I 
call  to  mind  the  former  days  in  which  we  took  sweet 
counsel  together,  and  the  evidences  I  then  had  of 
your  piety.  By  such  means  1  am  enabled  to  sur- 
mount many  difficulties,  and  still  entertain  a  favour- 
able opinion  of  your  piety  in  general,  and  am  sav- 


45 

• 

ed  from  a  disposition  to  denounce  even  those  who 
have  denounced  me. 

But  sometimes  conscience  whispers  to  me  thus, 
"  If  you  can  entertain  a  favourable  opinion  of  men 
who  believe  doctrines  which  appear  to  you  so  con- 
trary to  the  Bible,  as  that  the  self-existent  holy 
ONE  is  three  distinct  persons,  and  the  Son  who 
was  sent  and  the  God  who  serit  him  the  same  indi-- 
vidua!  Being:  and  not  only  so,  but  entertain  a 
principle  of  conduct  which  appears  to  you  so  re- 
pugnant to  the  nature  of  humility  and  ihe  feelings 
of  benevolence  ;  yea,  while,  on  this  very  principle, 
they  have  done  things  which  have  tended  to  the 
utter  ruin  of  your  own  character  ?.c,  a  minisier,  who 
is  to  be  excluded  from  your  charity  on  the  ground  of 
mere  errour  in  sentiment  P  To  this  demand  of  con- 
science, 1  have  to  answer  in  the  vulgar  style,  *' / 
donU  know*^''  I  find  I  need  some  acquaintance 
with  ihe  general  disposition  and  conduct  oUi\ en ^  be- 
fore I  can  properly  estimate  ihe'w  moral  characters, 
I  feel  happy  in  the  thought  that  I  had  acquaintance 
with  many  of  you,  before  I  fell  under  your  displea- 
sure. From  this  circumstance  I  am  led  toappre- 
he»id,  that  if  I  had  more  acquaintance  with  men  who 
differ  from  us  both,  I  should  find  still  more  sources  of 
joy.  The  more  good  people  I  find  in  the  world,  the 
more  numerous  are  the  sources  of  my  own  comfort. 
While  I  entertain  the  pleasing  hope  of  enjoying 
your  fellowship  in  a  better  world,  I  am  also  com- 
forted with  the  belief  that  many  others  of  different 
denominations,  whose  piety  may  have  been  buried 
from  our  view,  by  our  own  prepossessions,  will  al- 
so unite  with  us  in  a-icriptions  of  praise  to  God  and 
the  Lamb  for  ever  and  ever. 


APPENDIX  TO  THE  ADDRESS. 


A  PRUDENT  and  faithful  friend,  who  saw  the  ad- 
dress in  manuscript,  has  suggested  to  me,  that  not- 
withstanding all  I  have  said^  or  meant,  to  the  con- 
trary, it  will,  probably,  be  thought  by  some,  that  I 
am  in  favour  of  that  kind  of  Catholicism  which  em- 
braces all,  as  real  christians,  who  profess  to  be 
such  ;  and  which  countenances  sentiments  of  immor- 
al tendency,  Sind p7'actices  inconsistent  with  unfeigned 
piety.  Nothing,  however,  could  be  farther  from 
my  heart  than  such  a  kind  of  Catholicism.  The 
Catholicism  for  which  1  plead,  embraces  as  chris- 
tians, all  who  give  evidence  that  they  possess  the 
humble,  benevolent,  peaceable,  and  forgiving  spirit 
of  Christ,  whatever  varieties  there  may  be  in  their 
speculative  opinions.  As  it  is  this  temper  which 
is  above  every  thing  else  in  men,,  pleasing  in  the 
sight  of  God  ;  this,  above  every  thing  elsf^,  should 
be  regarded  as  essential  to  the  pious  character. 
He  who  loves  Christ  will  keep  his  com.mandments, 
and  regard  his  example;  of  course,  he  will  be  op- 
posed to  sentiments  which  license,  or  justify^  irre- 
ligious conduct. 

It  is,  however,  my  opinion  that,  in  the  present 
state,  the  best  of  men  are  liable  to  imperfections  in 
sentiment,  in  temper,  and  in  practice,  I'he  remarks 
towards  the  close  of  the  "address''  were  designed 
strongly  to  express  the  convictions  of  my  own 
mind,  that^wcA  imperfections  are  to  be  found  in  my 
Trinitarian  brethren,  as  well  as  in  professors  of 
©ther  denominations. 


47 

No  farther  than  wc  manifest  the  temper  of  Christ, 
in  our  opposition   to  what  we  esteem  to  be  errour, 
do  we  manifest  love  to  him.     Certainly,  if  we  have 
the  love  <*f  Christ  reigning  in  our  hearts,  we  sh.jll 
feel  tenderly  towards  surh  as  we  view  in  dangerous 
errours  ;  and  instead  of  adopting  measures   which 
tend  to  destroy  them,  we  shall  adopt  such   as  tend 
to  their   conviction    and    recovery.     Would   Christ 
have  Inid  down  his  life  for  us,   with  such   feelings 
as  people   indulge  in    reviling    one    anoiher  ?  Let 
couscienre  answer  the  question.      But  if  we  have 
not  the  s{)ijit  of  Christ  we  are  none  of  his,  whether 
we  are  Trinitarians  or  Unitarians;  and  if  we  have 
his  spirit  we  are  his^  hy   whatever  name  we  may  be 
caileiJ.     It   has    not    been    uncommon    with    sojue 
Trinitarians  to  accuse  other  denominations,  of  hold- 
ing sentiments  of  a  loose   and    immoral    tendency, 
I  do  not  know  that  the  accusation  is  not  just.     But 
would  it  not  be  proper  for  those  who  state  the   ac- 
cusation to  inquire   whether  they  themselves  are 
free  from  such  sentiments  ?   What  is   immorality^  if 
reviling  be  not  of  that    description  ?  And   if  indis- 
criminate and  reproached  denunciations,  against  ail 
who  dissent  from   the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in 
one  God,  be  not  of  the  nature  of  rei;i/i/?^,  will  it  not 
be  in  vain  to  look  for  any   thiiig  in  the   conduct  of 
mankind   deserving  of  that  name?  Yet  I  have  ex- 
pressed my  charity  for  some  who  have   been  occa- 
sionally   guilty    of  such    improper    conduct.     But 
why  ?  Not  because  I  do  not  view  such   conduct  as 
contrary  to  the    nature  of  piety   and   Christianity  ; 
but  because  I  believe  they  have  habitually  in  them 
something  better  than  what  they  manifest  on  such 
occasions. 

If  Doctor  Campbell  be  correct  in  his  investiga- 
tion of  the  sciipLural  meaning  of  the  term  heresy. 


4« 

there  is,  perhaps,  no  sentiment  which  is  more  of 
an  heretical  nature  than  that  which  licenses  people 
to  reject  and  denounce  all  such  as  dissent  from  their 
opinions.  Th^  Doctor  has  shown,  that  the  word 
originally  signified  sect  ov  party  without  any  reter- 
ence  to  sentiment  whether  good  or  had.  He  has 
examined  in  an  able  manner,  the  several  passages 
of  scripture  in  which  the  word  heresy  is  found  ;  and 
has  shown  that  when  any  blame  is  attached  to  the 
word  it  always  implies  a  spirit  of  dissentioyi^  or  a 
disposition  to  make  divisions  or  form  sects  to  the  in- 
jury of  the  comnion  good.     Thus  he  writes  : — 

"The  word  a/ffc-;?,  heresy,  in  scriptural  use,  has 
no  necessary  connection  with  opinion  at  all.  Its 
immediate  connection  is  with  division  or  dissention, 
as  is  that  whereby  sects  and  parties  are  found. — 
At^eTixoi  uvS^aTTog  {{he  man  that  is  an  heretick)  must 
therefore  mean  one  who  is  the  founder  of  a  sect,  or, 
at  least,  has  the  disposition  to  create  sects  in  the  com- 
munity ;  and  may  properly  be  rendered  'a  factious 
man.  This  version  perfectly  coincides  with  the  scope 
of  the  place,  and  suits  the  uniform  import  ol  the  term 
ui^eTig^  heresy,  from  which  it  is  derived.  The  ad- 
monition here  given  to  Titus  is  the  same,  though 
difft  rently  expressed,  with  what  he  had  given  to 
the  Romans  when  he  sSiid,  Mark  them  which  cause 
divisions,  make  parties  or  frictions,  and  avoid  them. 
As  far  down,  indeed,  as  the  filth  century,  and  even 
lower,  erronr  alone,  however  ^ross,  was  not  consid- 
ered as  sufficient  to  warrant  the  charge  of  heresy. 
Malignity  ovperverseness  of  disposition  Vf  as  held  es- 
sential to  this  crime." 

The  Doctor  closes  this  dissertation  with  these 
words  : — "  1  shall  conclude  with  adding  to  the  ob- 
servations on  the  words  schism  and  heresy^  that  how 
much  soever  of  a  schismatical  or  heretical  spirit^  in 


49 

the  apostolick  sense  of  the  terms,  may  have  contri- 
buted to  the  formation  of  the  different  sects  into 
which  the  christian  world  is  at  present  divided,  no 
person  who  in  the  spirit  of  candour  and  charity  ad- 
heres to  that  which,  to  the  best  of  his  judgment,  is 
right,  though  in  thi-i  opinion  he  should  he  mistaken, 
is,  in  the  scripture  sense  either  schismatick  or  here- 
tick  ;  and  that  he,  on  the  contrary,  whatever  sect  he 
belong  to,  is  more  entitled  to  these  odious  appella- 
tions who  is  most  apt  to  throw  the  imputation  up- 
on others.  Both  terms,  for  they  denote  only  dif- 
ferent degrees  of  the  same  bad  quality,  always  in- 
dicate a  disposition  7\nd practice  unfriendly  to /?f ace, 
harmony  and  /oi'e."* 

These  quotations  have  not  been  made  with 
any  desire  to  tix  on  my  brethren  the  infamous 
charge  of  Aere^^ ;  but  to  give  all  who  may  read 
these  pages  opportunity  to  judge  for  themselves, 
whether  I  am  more  liable  to  such  a  charge  than 
those  who  have  been  fond  of  treating  me  as  an 
heretick.  Heresy^  in  the  sense  given  by  Dr.  Camp- 
bell, is  a  thing  of  which  ministers  and  churches 
may  be  competent  judges  ;  and  it  is,  in  my  opinion, 
a  much  greater  evil  than  any  mere  errour  in  opinion. 
If  any  of  my  brethren  wish  me  to  be  tried  on  an  ac- 
cusation oi  heresy^  in  the  scriptural  sense  of  the 
term,  let  the  process  he  regular,  and  I  will  not  shun 
the  trial  ;  and  if  I  shall  be  found  guilty,  let  me  be 
regularly  excluded.  But  I  would  entreat  my 
brethren  to  be  careful  that  they  be  not  guilty  of 
heresy  through  anxiety  to  have  me  viewed  as  a 
heretick. 

Lest  it  should  still  be  thought  that  I  do  not  suffi- 
ciently {ee\  the  importance  q{  right  sentiments  in  re* 

*  See  Piel.  Dissertations,  Vol.  II.  p.  141. 
26 


50 

ligion,  suffer  me  further  to  observe  that,  in  my  opin- 
ion, a  man  ran  give  no  6e/fer  evidence  thathe/ec/5- 
the  importance  of  right  sentiments^  than  that  of  lying 
open  to  conviction,  and  faithfully  and  thoroughly 
examining,  and  correcting  his  own  0!)ininns  by  the 
light  of  revelaion ;  and  doing  ail  in  his  power  to 
communicate  light  to  others.  In  what  de^rree  I 
have  given  this  kind  of  evidence  that  I  am  not  indif" 
ferent  as  to  religious  sentiments,  God  will  deter- 
mine. If  this  be  not  as  good  evidence  of  a  sacred 
regard  to  truths  as  a  pertinacious  adherence  to 
"  tradition,  received  from  the  fathers,"  without  any 
impartial  examination  as  to  their  correctness,  then 
I  have  failed  of  giving  the  best  evidence  that  I  am 
not  indifferent  as  to  religious  opinions.  As  to  that 
kind  of  evidence  of  res,ard  to  truth,  which  some 
give  by  hitter^  censorious  and  reproachful  conduct 
towards  such  as  dissent  from  their  opinions,  it  is, 
in  my  view,  of  the  most  questionable  natvre  ;  is  as 
often  displayed  in  favour  of  falsehood  as  of  truth  j 
and  it  is  no  part  of  the  evidence  which  I  wish  to 
have  set  to  my  account.  For  it  is  my  firm  belief, 
that  that  kind  of  attack raent  to  any  opinion,  which 
disposes  us  to  violate  the  laios  of  love  can  never  be 
approved  by  God. 


iH: 


